JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal, Alwar whereby the application moved by the petitioner for denial of tenant-landlord relationship and application for taking document namely, bills on record have been rejected. Learned counsel submits that the applications ought to have been decided on merits.

2. This court finds that the Tribunal has looked into the contents of the application and found that the application was moved in 2015 whereafter the reply was filed and thereafter, several other applications were filed under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC and Order 14 Rule 15 CPC and the petitioner-tenant has been indulging in all methods to delay the proceedings. The application for eviction was moved in 2015 and already six years have lapsed and by one way or the other the petitioner is delaying the disposal of the application pending before the Rent Tribunal and therefore, the Rent Tribunal has proceeded but dismissed the application with direction to the respondent (herein "petitioner") to cross examine the witness of the landlord on the next date. The order was passed on 24.02.2020 which has now been challenged before this court in the year 2021 obviously to delay the further proceedings.

3. This court has been observing that the matters relating to cases between the landlord and the tenant are ought to be decided expeditiously and the same cannot be allowed to be remained pending for long. Strict proceedings under CPC are not required to be followed.

4. In the case of Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604, the Apex Court has observed and held as under:-

"15. The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused.

16. Of course a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ) pointed out in another case Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt vs. Rashiklal Manilal Shah that the pendency of a lis for a record period of thirty one years has transformed a middle aged landlord to advanced stage of greenery and at that stage he could not start a new business venture. After lamenting over the system which caused a whopping delay of thirty one years the Bench made two directions. The first was that the son of the landlord who by that time had four and a half years more to go for reaching the superannuation age could consider starting the business in the tenanted premises after retirement. The second was that in the meanwhile the rent for the building would stand enhanced from Rs. 101/- to Rs. 3500/- per month.

17. Considering all the aforesaid decisions, we are of the definite view that the subsequent events pleaded and highlighted by the appellant are too insufficient to overshadow the bona fide need concurrently found by the fact finding courts.

18. We wish to add, as an epilogue, that this case can provide a catalytic agent for the High Courts to evolve some concrete schemes for winching to the fore similar long pending matters, lying in torpidity at the bottom of the crammed list of pending cases in the High Courts after passing the initial orders, keeping the operative part of decrees in abeyance. It is worth considering whether a cell can be set up in each of such High Courts where the piles of backlog are a stirring problem, to pick out such cases to be brought to the notice of the Chief justice of the High Court concerned so that he could take appropriate steps in the matter.

19. The above is not an advice, but only a suggestion. If any alternative