Vineet Saran, Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ. - (1.) This appeal had been been filed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Magistrate, Maharajganj against the judgment and order dated 7.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 was allowed with a detailed and reasoned order. The operative portion of which is reproduced below:- "35. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.6.1993 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition), declaring vacancy, is hereby quashed. RCEO is directed to proceed with the matter afresh with regard to determination of vacancy in the accommodation in question in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs quantified to Rs. 50,000/-, which has to be shared equally by respondents no.1 and 3."
(2.) While hearing this appeal, time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants to obtain instructions as to whether after the writ petition was allowed the respondent no. 2 was evicted or not. On 20.8.2014, it was noted that such order was being passed as the learned counsel for the appellant had stated that the appellants are challenging only that part of the order by which cost has been imposed upon the appellants.
(3.) The matter was heard on various dates and today Sri A.K. Pandey learned Additional Advocate General appearing alongwith Sri J.P.N. Rai learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has made a statement that the appellants do not wish to press this appeal.;