- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. This is an unfor tunate case of a dispute between two real brothers. The younger brother has filed this writ petition against the order, dated 21-3-1995 declaring the vacancy in premises in dispute. The premises in dis pute is non-residential accommodation which was in possession of the petitioner.
(2.) THE entire proceeding started on the application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are father and sons. In this proceeding the petitioner filed his objection and in the objection it is mentioned that initially the owner was Sri Mohan Lai, who was the father of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. After his death the property was partitioned on 6-2-1992 and ,his shop was given in the partition respondent No. 2. He further says that after the partition he is continuing to be the tenant of the premises in dispute. Counsel for the petitioner admits that in the partition deed no tenancy rights has been given to the petitioner. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer was rightly declared the premises to be vacant. This property is. released in favour of the respondent No. 2. Sri Dayal, Counsel for the respon dent No. 2 states that his client being the elder brother of the petitioner will not evict the petitioner for a period of one year from today provided the petitioner filed his undertaking that he will not create any other hindrance as regards to the property in dispute. It is expected that release proceedings will be completed within a period of one year. With these observations the present writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;