Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Both these matters arise out of common proceedings and, therefore, have been heard together.
(2.) Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in both these writ petitions has not disputed that in respect to property in dispute, a suit for specific performance i.e. Suit No. 178 of 1985 is pending in Civil Court. He also did not dispute that in respect to property in dispute, sale deed has been executed in favour of Sri Ansarul Haq on 19.2.1985 and the same has been challenged by petitioner in another Suit No. 944 of 1986 filed for cancellation of sale deed executed by Smt. Mahmooda Khatoon in favour of Ansarul Haq. Therein an interim injunction has been granted on 29.5.1992 directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is also not in dispute that Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") by means of order dated 20.8.1996 has declared vacancy in the accommodation in question but by another order dated 7.9.1996 has released the said accommodation and it has been clarified in Revision filed by petitioner i.e. Revision No. 114 of 1999 that whosoever be found owner of property in question in the pending suit, shall get the benefit of release order in question. In these facts and circumstances of the case, no cause of action survives to petitioner in the present writ petition and petitioner, in fact, ought to have expedited pending suits before the Courts below instead of pressing these writ petitions.
(3.) In view of above, both these writ petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.;