1 99 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3987/2009. Shyam Kumar Vs. Appellate Authority (Rent Control) & Ors. Date of Order :: 24th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr. P.S. Bhati ] Mr. Manmeet Singh ], for the petitioner. Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat, for the respondent No.3. .... At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter has been taken up for consideration out of turn. This writ petition was entertained on 21.04.2009 for the emergent situation shown on behalf of the petitioner that the possession of the suit premises was to be taken in execution of the eviction orders for the petitioner having made a minor default in compliance of the requirements of the order dated 07.08.2008 as passed by this Court in CWP No. 5008/2008 whereby time to vacate was granted until 31.07.2009. For the submissions made, notices were ordered to be issued to the respondent No.3, returnable next day. However, on 22.04.2009, an application (IA No. 6477/2009) came to be moved by the petitioner with the submissions that the named respondent No.3 had expired on 15.07.2008; and, at request, his wife Smt. Fajra Devi was ordered to be substituted as respondent No.3. Notices on the said substituted respondent No.3 have been served and on her behalf, learned counsel Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat has 2 put in appearance. Learned counsel Mr.Om Prakash Kumawat submits that the possession of the suit premises had already been recovered on 18.04.2009; and has shown photostat of certified copies of the possession recovery reports and so also the other papers showing that certain goods were handed over to the son of the petitioner. In view of the documents as shown by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, it does not remain in doubt that the substantive proceedings for recovery of possession of the premises in question had already been taken in the execution proceedings even before this writ petition was filed by the petitioner. Therefore, there appears no reason to continue with the writ petition any further. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submissions that substantial machineries and goods of the petitioner are lying in the premises in question. Without any comments on such submissions, suffice is to observe that for any other proposition, it is always open for the petitioner to move appropriate application before the Executing Court and it cannot be assumed that if the relevant submissions are made before the Executing Court, the same would not be given due and adequate consideration. With the observations aforesaid, the writ petition stands rejected. 3 (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. /Mohan/