Judgment :- Aggrieved over the delay caused in the disposal of an execution petition in E.P.No.70 of 2002, the landlord who obtained an order of eviction on 2. 1994 in RCOP No.133 of 1993, has brought forth this revision petition before this Court. 2. In order to avoid the avoidable delay, it is not necessary that a notice should be sent to the respondent. 3. After the passing of the order of eviction in the RCOP and after the long agitation, he filed the E.P. on 210. 2002. Pending the E.P., an interlocutory application was filed to condone the delay of 3235 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order of eviction. The Rent Controller allowed the same. That was challenged before this Court. This Court had an occasion to consider the merits of the matter and allowed the revision filed by the landlord. Then, the tenant took it on SLP before the Supreme Court, where the order of this Court was affirmed. Thereafter, E.P.No.70 of 2002 was taken up for consideration. The same is pending for nearly five years. The long pendency of the execution petition before the lower Court is the only grievance ventilated by the petitioner. Taking into consideration that the RCOP was filed in the year 1993, and there was an order of eviction in the year 1994, and there has been long agitation by different ways by the tenant, and now, the present E.P. is pending for nearly five years, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit and proper case where a direction can be given to the Rent Controller to dispose of the execution petition on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.