Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The present writ petition arises out of allotment proceedings. It was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 3 by the impugned order. During the pendency of the present writ petition the respondent No. 3 has expired. The petitioners are the landlord of the premises in question. This Court while entertaining the writ petition by the order dated 28th of July, 1992 stayed the operation of the impugned orders dated 30.1.1992 and 4th of July, 1992 (Annexures 1 and 3 to the writ petition) respectively. In pursuance of the aforesaid interim orders the petitioners who are the landlord are continuing in occupation of the premises in question. The learned Counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that subsequently the accommodation in disputed has been released in favour of the petitioners. Although he prayed time to file a certified copy of the release order but since the matter is old one, the prayer for time was refused. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents are not responding to his letters. Obviously since the petitioners are landlord and they are continuing in possession; the respondent No. 3 after death of her husband lost interest in the litigation.
(2.) In view of the fact that the premises in question stands released in favour of the landlord. The allotment orders dated 30.1.1992 and 4.7.1992 cannot be allowed to stand. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.1.1992 and 4.7.1992 are hereby quashed.
(3.) No order as to costs. Petition allowed.;