Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 10.4.2013 and 23.2.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 66 of 2010 (Jai Narain Tiwari Vs. Smt. Savitri Sengar). 3. It appears, the accommodation in dispute, i.e., House No. 33/189, situated in Gaya Prasad lane, Kanpur Nagar was released in favour of the petitioner. Challenging this order, the respondent filed Rent Revision No. 66 of 2010 (Jai Narain Tiwari Vs. Smt. Savitri Sengar), which was heard by 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, who vide order dated 12.1.2010 stayed the operation of the impugned order in the revision, subject to payment of Rs. 1500/- per month. It further appears that the respondent, instead of paying the the same to the petitioner, has started to deposit the same before the court concerned. The petitioner herein has filed an application no. 57-C for withdrawal of the deposited amount on 8.10.2010. The other side filed written objection no. 75-C stating therein that as the landlord (the petitioner) has never admitted him as a tenant, therefore, there is no question arises for payment of rent to him. The learned Judge rejected the application of the landlord-petitioner vide order dated 23.2.2013 by observing that in case the landlord is permitted to withdraw the amount, it would further complicate the issue. The petitioner herein filed another application no. 09 on 29.3.2013 for withdrawal of the amount. The learned Judge again, taking note of the order dated 23.2.2013, has disposed of the application by observing that in view of the order dated 23.2.2013, the amount cannot be released. 4. Sri Singh contends that the learned Judge, while passing the impugned orders dated 23.2.2013 and 10.4.2013, has misconstrued and misinterpreted the order dated 12.1.2010. In his submissions, while granting the interim protection on 12.1.2010, the learned Judge, who passed the order, has never observed that the revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 1500/- rent per month. In his submission, Rs. 1500/- is neither qualified by the word 'rent' nor 'damages'. The petitioner had throughout been treating the respondent as unauthorized occupant, therefore, the learned Judge, knowing it well, has not mentioned the word 'rent'. 1500/- rent per month. In his submission, Rs. 1500/- is neither qualified by the word 'rent' nor 'damages'. The petitioner had throughout been treating the respondent as unauthorized occupant, therefore, the learned Judge, knowing it well, has not mentioned the word 'rent'. In his submission, the interim order was granted only on the condition of payment of Rs. 1500/- per month and there was no such direction for depositing the same in the court and both the courts below have erred in rejecting the petitioner's application. In his further submissions, admittedly, till date the status of the respondent is of an authorized occupant as the order declaring vacancy was never challenged by the respondent and ultimately, the accommodation has been released in favour of the petitioner. The dispossession of the petitioner was stayed subject to payment of Rs. 1500/- per month. Obviously, it was to be paid to the petitioner, but with the oblique motive, the respondent started depositing the same before the court and the court has refused to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount. 5. Prima facie, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, but I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order for the simple reason that it is the revision of 2009 and more than four years have passed. Rightly or wrongly, Rs. 1500/- per month has been deposited before the court below and the same has not been released in favour of the petitioner as yet, therefore, at this interlocutory stage, I do not think it proper to upset the order passed by the learned Judge. However, it is directed that the revision itself be decided expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned counsel for the parties. In case any adjournment is sought for, that can only be allowed after imposing cost not less than Rs. 500/-. In case adjournment is granted, the cost imposed upon the party seeking adjournment be paid to the other side by the next date fixed. In case of default, the defaulting party shall not be permitted to participate in the proceeding. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. _____________