Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Petitioner has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondent No.2 i.e. District Magistrate to decide petition No. 2 of 2010, (Hari Babu Gupta Vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta), within a time bound period. The pleadings of the petition are difficult to comprehend as they contained incorrect description of the proceedings, the Act under which they have been initiated and the authority before whom the proceedings are pending. The petition was taken up for consideration yesterday and on account of the above difficulty faced, counsel for the petitioner, who was also unable to explain the nature of the proceedings and the authority before whom they are said to be pending, the matter was adjourned for today so that he may be in a position to assist the court in a better way. Today the petition has been called out twice but the counsel for the petitioner has failed to appear. In the above circumstances, I have myself gone through the pleadings verbatim whereupon the aforesaid facts have come to light. It appears that petitioner has filed an application purported to be under Section 2-A(5) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the prescribed authority Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Mainpuri against one Ashwani Kumar Gupta for his eviction from the shop in question. The petitioner actually wants decision of the aforesaid application at an early date by the prescribed authority and not by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate and the State of U.P. have incorrectly been arrayed as the respondents as no relief has been claimed against them. The description of the State of U.P. is also incomplete. The private party against whom the aforesaid application has been filed and the prescribed i.e. Civil Judge Judge (Senior Division), upon whom the direction is sought have not been arrayed as the respondents. Apart from the above, the pleadings in the application filed under Section 2-A(5) of the Act are also inconsistent. In paragraph 1 of the application it has been stated that the opposite party Ashwani Kumar Gupta, was let out the shop in question on rent of Rs.750/- per month for a period of three years by the petitioner's mother Smt. Ram Dulari. In paragraph 1 of the application it has been stated that the opposite party Ashwani Kumar Gupta, was let out the shop in question on rent of Rs.750/- per month for a period of three years by the petitioner's mother Smt. Ram Dulari. At the same time the relief claimed in the application is as if the opposite party has been permitted to occupy the said shop as a short term license. The stand so taken by the petitioner in the application is in contradiction. It is necessary to point that Section 2-A(5) of the Act is applicable in respect of short term license where a licensee fails to vacate the premises on the expiry of the license period. It does not come into play where a premise has been let out for a period exceeding three months and more. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2-A(5) of the Act on the face of it is misconceived. In such a situation, I do not consider it fit and proper to issue any direction to the prescribed authority to deal with the above application expeditiously or to decide it within a time bound period. The writ petition is dismissed with cost as misconceived. ……………………………