IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1138 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st October, 2009. Jaswant Rai Jain Petitioner through Mr. P.K.Kukreja, Advocate Versus Subhash Chander & Anr. Respondents through Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, for the applicants. 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 preferred by the landlord whose eviction petition against the respondent – tenant filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana vide order dated 8.11.2006, which has been further up-held by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana vide its judgment dated 28.11.2007. Aggrieved, the landlord has approached this Court. It may be noticed here that the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent, inter-alia, on the grounds of :- [i] non-payment of rent; [ii] personal necessity and [iii] impairment of value and utility of the demised premises. Since the tenant tendered the arrears of rent, the other two grounds were rejected by the courts below. During the pendency of this revision petition, Smt. Sudesh Mahajan and Ashwani Kumar Mahajan son of Shri Tilak Raj Mahajan have moved Civil Misc. Application No. 7989-CII of 2009 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for their substitution in place of the petitioner – landlord on the plea that the demised premises has been purchased by them in an open auction conducted by the Union Bank of India, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh and a 'Sale Certificate' has also been issued in their favour on 18.2.2009. The afore-stated applicants have moved yet another Civil Misc. Application No. 8083-84-CII of 2009 to permit them to withdraw this revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner – original landlord, however, vehemently contends that the alleged 'auction' or the 'Sale Certificate' dated 18.2.2009 are the result of connivance between the applicants and the Bank and he has already challenged their action before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is urged that on the basis of subsequent events, the petitioner – landlord's rights can not be affected. Alternatively, counsel for the petitioner – original landlord urges that the revision petition may be disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh eviction proceedings against the respondent – tenant on any of the grounds under the Rent Act, if he succeeds in the proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in case his title qua the subject property is restored. The above noticed alternative prayer of the petitioner is not opposed by counsel for the applicants or the respondent – tenants. Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of as having become infructuous at this stage, with liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh eviction proceedings on any of the grounds as may be available to him under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, after the decision of the proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal if his title over the subject property is restored. Civil Misc. Nos. 7989 and 8083-84-CII of 2009 also stand disposed of in the above terms. Disposed of. Dasti. October 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE