Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiori quashing the order dated 9.7.2013 by which the petitioner's application for consolidating the Rent Control Appeal No. 124 of 2011 (Shabd Kumar vs. Bangali and Rent Control Appeal No. 193 of 2010 (Bangali Babu vs. Bangalimal Gupta) has been rejected by the Additional District Judge,Court No. 8, Agra. 3. It appears that the landlord, respondent no.2, has filed two release applications, one, P.A.No. 28 of 2002 and another, P.A. No. 29 of 2002. P.A. No. 29 of 2002 was with respect of eviction of the petitioner and P.A. No. 28 of 2002 was with respect to eviction of respondent no.3. Both the release applications were allowed on different dates against which different appeals were filed. It is contended that the present applicant was unaware of the fact that eviction of another tenant in the same building has been sought through different release application before the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, could not file application for consolidating the cases pneding before the Prescribed Authority. Now in appeal an application has been filed for consolidating the aforementioned two appeals which has been rejected. It is contended that the court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it as both the matters are related to eviction of the tenants, therefore, both the appeals ought to have been heard together. In his submissions although it is discretinary power of the authority concerned either to consolidate or not to consolidate the cases but power has to be exercised in judicial manner. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Amanattullah and others vs. Additional District Judge Court no.2, Bahraich and others (2011(2)ARC 871). Attention of the Court has been drawn to paragraph 28 of the judgment wherein it has been observed that it is settled proposition of law that if a discretion is vested in a court/authority, the same could not be exercised in an arbitrary manner but should be exercised judicially after proper application of mind. Attention of the Court has been drawn to paragraph 28 of the judgment wherein it has been observed that it is settled proposition of law that if a discretion is vested in a court/authority, the same could not be exercised in an arbitrary manner but should be exercised judicially after proper application of mind. He has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. and another (2007) 1 SCC 97 and another decision of this Court in Writ-C No. 9237 of 2013 (Udai Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 20.2.2013. So far as judgments in State Bank of India (supra) and Udai Bahadur Singh (supra) are concerned I find that facts of those cases were different, therefore, those cases are of no help to the petitioner. So far as judgment in Amanattullah (supra) is concerned the Court has observed that if a discretion is vested in a court/authority that has to be exercised in judicial manner and not in arbitrary manner. Suffice is to say that while rejecting the application the appellate court has observed that defence in both the cases are different. The petitioner has admitted himself to be tenant whereas in other case the tenancy is disputed. He has also observed that appeal related to the petitioner is ripe for final hearing whereas the other case is not ripe and it will take some more time. Since the appeal relating to the petitioner is ripe for hearing, therefore I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order as the cases relating to landlord and tenant have to be decided at the earliest, i.e within two months in view of Rule 15(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. In view of foregoing discussions, I do not find any merits in the present writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. ____________