JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. - Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent no. 1. Issue notices to the respondent nos. 2 to 5 are dispensed with. 2. With the consent of the parties' counsel, writ petition is disposed of finally at admission stage. 3. Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that appeals filed by the contesting respondents numbered as [Rent Appeal No. 29 of 2008(Sunder Kaur and others Vs. Ram Kali and others) and Rent Appeal No. 36 of 2009(Gurudeep Singh and others Vs. Ram Kali and others)] under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are pending before the respondent no. 1 i.e. Additional District Judge, Court no. 8, Lucknow and the same are lingering in the ends of the said authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the provisions as provided under Rule 7(7) of U.P. Urban Buildings(Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 reads as under :- "(7) As far as possible, a revision under Section 18 shall be decided within one month, an appeal or revision under Section shall be decided within two months, and an appeal under Section 22 shall be decided within six months from the date of its representation." 5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the respondent no. 1 may be directed to dispose of the Rent appeals in question expeditiously at an early date. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Needless to mention that in the case of Manju Devi(Smt.) Vs. Additional District Judge, VIII, Allahabad and others, this Court held as under :- "The matters of tenancy between landlord and tenant has serious consequences and also reflects upon the judiciary. The question of delay in a primary responsibility of the Court and they must strive to decide the cases in time prescribed under the statute pertaining under the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 with Rules framed thereunder. If the authorities appointed under the aforesaid Act and Rules failed in their duties cast upon them by deciding cases first beyond the time prescribed under the Act, then it is to be treated as serious misconduct calling for action against the said officer." 8. For the foregoing reasons, respondent no. If the authorities appointed under the aforesaid Act and Rules failed in their duties cast upon them by deciding cases first beyond the time prescribed under the Act, then it is to be treated as serious misconduct calling for action against the said officer." 8. For the foregoing reasons, respondent no. 1(Additional District Judge, Court no. 8, Lucknow) is directed to consider and decide the Rent Appeal No. 29 of 2008(Sunder Kaur and others Vs. Ram Kali and others) and Rent Appeal No. 36 of 2009 (Gurudeep Singh and others Vs. Ram Kali and others) under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, within a period of four months after receiving the certified copy of this order in accordance with law. 9. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit. 10. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of finally.