JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J.

The matters come up for consideration of the application (1A No. 1/2023) preferred on behalf of appellant - Vinay Jangid in DBSAW No. 986/2022 with a prayer for early listing of the appeal.

2. The Registry has fixed the next date in the matters as 23.05.2023, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard finally today.

3. Accordingly, the application (1A No. 1/2023) is disposed of.

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent - Arya Samaj filed applications under the provision of RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2001’) against the appellants for eviction of the rented premises. The said application was preferred before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur in the year 2021 and notices were served upon the appellants in September 2021. During the pendency of the said application, respondent - Arya Samaj preferred separate writ petitions before this Court seeking direction for the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur to conclude the proceedings expeditiously as per the provision of Section 15(5) of the Act of 2001.

5. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge without issuing notices to the appellants disposed of all the writ petitions with a direction to the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur to expedite the proceedings by giving shorter dates and decide the application at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

6. By way of the present appeals, the appellants have challenged the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned orders, whereby the direction be issued to the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur to decide the application filed by respondent - Arya Samaj within stipulated time, without examining the case of respondent -- Arya Samaj vis-a-vis the case of other landlords, whose cases are also pending before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and even without taking into consideration the schedule of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur, passed the impugned orders without any compelling reasons available in the cases.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of the matter has already observed that such type of order of disposal of proceedings within stipulated time should not have been passed in a casual manner and can only be passed when some compelling reasons are available.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has, therefore, prayed that the appeals may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent - Arya Samaj has supported the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, we are of the view that without assessing the compelling reasons and before extending opportunity of hearing to all the parties, the Court should be slow in directing the trial courts to decide the proceeding within stipulated time.

13. However, while taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs evidence before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur is going to be concluded very soon, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

Hence, the present special appeal writs are dismissed.