1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2419 OF 1992 P.P.Satsangi Petitioner Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & ors. Respondents Mr.Y.S.Bhate for petitioner-absent. Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for Resp.Nos.1 and 2. Mrs.Neeta Masurkar for Resp.Nos.4, 5 and 6. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ. March 21, 2006. P.C. . None appears for the petitioner and when the petition was called out for hearing on 13/3/2006 it was the same case. . The petitioner has challenged the order of eviction passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 by the Estate Officer on 15/11/1990 and confirmed in Misc.Appeal No.227 of 1990 with modifications by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Mumbai. While granting Rule initially interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted. The interim relief came to be modified on 7/9/1992 and 30th January 2001. . Mr.Sanglikar, the learned counsel appearing 2 for the Respondent No.1 Corporation has placed before us the documents which show that the possession of the subject premises has already been taken over from the petitioner and the property bearing T.C.No.2322 Row-I, Villa 8, ground floor, Borivli (West) is already with the Corporation w.e.f. 16/2/2001. The belongings were locked. It is also clear that the amount of Rs.65,000/- has been deposited in this Court and it could not be disbursed because of the interim order. As per the conditional orders passed by this Court it was for the petitioner to comply with the conditions and failing to do so has resulted in the eviction order having been implemented. The petitioner has to blame himself. . Be that as it may, the fact remains that this petition no more survives and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed as infructuous. Rule discharged. No costs. The amount shall be disbursed with interest, if any, accrued thereon to the Respondent No.1. (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)