WPMS No. 5259 of 2001 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Kovid Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. Against the declaration of a vacancy made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the present writ petition has been filed. Inspite of the repeated time being granted, substitution application to implead the heirs of respondent No.3, has not been filed. Consequently, the writ petition in so far respondent No.3 is concerned, is dismissed. This Court further finds that the landlord has not been impleaded as party, which, in the opinion of the Court, is a necessary party and he has to be heard. Consequently, in the absence of non impleadment of the necessary party, namely, the landlord, the writ petition is also dismissed. This court is also of the opinion that against the order of the declaration, no writ petition is maintainable and it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the declaration after the allotment is made. A certified copy of this order may be sent by the Registry to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for necessary information and action within two weeks from today. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 16.08.2010 Shiv