IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 427 of 2007. Date of Decision: 25th February, 2008. Prem Chand Petitioner through Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate Versus Surinder Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 15.12.2007 whereby in an appeal filed by the respondents claiming themselves to be the landlords, the Appellate Authority has directed the Rent Controller, Ludhiana to hold further inquiry by recording evidence of both the parties and submit the report to enable the Appellate Authority to arrive at a just conclusion in the pending appeal. Notice of motion was issued and further proceedings were stayed by this Court. In response thereto, though a learned counsel had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents on 15.3.2007, however, no one has appeared thereafter. Civil Revision No. 427 of 2007. ::2:: It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact even before filing of the eviction petition on 24.12.1997, the respondents had sold the subject premises on 26.8.1997 by way of a registered sale deed in favour of Tilak Raj son of Mehar Chand. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of his above noticed stand that the respondents no longer have any interest in the subject property, in my considered view, the contentions raised in this revision petition and/or the issues which are pending before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, have been rendered infructuous and there is no legal necessity to adjudicate upon the same. Consequently, the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are set aside and the eviction petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. This order, however, shall not cause any prejudice to the new landlord to whom the subject property is stated to have been sold and he shall be at liberty to initiate fresh eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the Rent Act, if so advised. Disposed of. February 25, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE