N)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1881 of 1984 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- VALIYUDDIN ABDULREHAMAN Versus 1/1 TARABEN WD/O JASWANTLAL DAHYABHAI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SB VAKIL for Petitioners NOTICE SERVED for Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 24/11/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This is a very old revision of the year 1984 under section 29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. When this matter was taken up for final hearing Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that inspite of his repeated efforts, his clients i.e. the petitioners have not responded or communicated to him in any manner so as to give further instructions in the matter. He has further informed that the premises in question may have been demolished for road widening under a Town Planning Scheme. It is, therefore, very likely that the petitioners may no longer be interested in the present matter. This also gains support from the fact that the respondents-landlords have also not appeared in the matter although they are served. 3. It, therefore, appears that the present revision has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 4. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty upto 26th February 2001. ******