Judgment Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. This is the writ petition whereby certain orders passed by the courts below such as in revisional jurisdiction are being challenged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3 who was the tenant of the petitioners, moved an application under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 before the authorities to declare the flat of House No.33 Gandhi Road, Dehradun vacant. The petitioners submitted that without issuing notices to them even though they were the landlords, the said application was allowed on 30.3.1995 by the authority and the said premise was declared vacant. Subsequently it was allotted to respondent no.4 who is the son of respondent no.3 on whose application initially the building was declared vacant. When the petitioners were apprised of the order, they filed a revision before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. When the said revision was pending consideration of the revisional court quite curiously another application was moved by the then tenant Gulab Singh (respondent no.3) before the revisional court stating that he has now filed a review application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer praying that the earlier order dated 30.3.1995, by which the premises was declared vacant, may be reviewed and order be recalled. Therefore a prayer was made before the revisional court that the revisional court may not proceed in the mtter since there is an application for review of the order dated 30.3.1995 of the court below is pending before the court below. The said application has been allowed by the revisional court i.e. by Additional District Judge, Dehradun on 2.6.2000 and proceedings of the revision have been stayed sine die till the review application is decided by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This order is presently under challenge by the petitioners/landlords in the writ petition. This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad way back in the year 2000 and stood transferred to this Court under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. This Court has also been informed at the bar that nothing further has happened on the review application of the respondent. 3. In the present writ petition, an interim order was passed on 24.7.2000 by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court whereby the order dated 2.6.2000 was stayed. This Court has also been informed at the bar that nothing further has happened on the review application of the respondent. 3. In the present writ petition, an interim order was passed on 24.7.2000 by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court whereby the order dated 2.6.2000 was stayed. The net result of the said interim order would have been in normal course that the proceedings in the revision should have proceeded. This, however, did not happen. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the court below has understood the interim order dated 24.7.2000 of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court as a stay to the proceedings, which are pending before the revisional court. 5. This is an extremely old matter, which pertains to the year 2007. Although notices were sent many times, the office report though shows that respondents could not be served as the respondents are not residing at the address. From the perusal of the records and appraisal of the fact, this Court is of a firm view that the application moved by the tenants was purely in order to dilate the proceedings and was an abuse of process of the Court. The order passed by the court below, which is presently under challenge before this Court, is only to dilate the present proceedings and it would be travesty of justice if the matter remains pending in this Court. An evidence has been placed by the petitioners before this Court which is an information dated 8.9.2011 given to them under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the court below which shows a reply given to one of the petitioners that revisional court proceedings have been stayed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court by order dated 24.7.2000 (a copy of this information has been made a part of record of this Court and now annexed as Annexure - X to the writ petition). From this, it becomes clear that when the matter is pending before this Court and the order of revisional court was stayed by this Court it was in knowledge of the court below and respondents were aware of the present proceedings before this Court yet they are not present before this Court. On this presumption, this Court deems it fit to proceed with the matter. 6. The order dated 2.6.2000 passed by the court below is set aside. On this presumption, this Court deems it fit to proceed with the matter. 6. The order dated 2.6.2000 passed by the court below is set aside. The courts below is hereby directed to expedite the proceedings in revision no. 166 of 1996 which is pending either before Fast Track Court or before Additional District Judge, Dehradun (which ever the case may be) and bring it to its logical ends as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted. 7. No order as to costs. 8. The Registrar General is hereby directed to apprise the District Judge, Dehradun of this order so that he may inform to the proper court at Dehradun where the present revision is pending.