C.R. No. 111 of 2009 20.5.2010 Present:- Mr. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Suneet Goel, counsel for respondent No.1. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 - landlord has submitted that in pursuance of ejectment order the petitioner has already handed over vacant possession of the premises in question to respondent No.1 on 1.10.2009. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that in these circumstances now the petition does not survive. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no instructions but he has not denied the statement of learned counsel for respondent No.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of learned counsel for respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the petition does not survive and is dismissed as rendered infructuous. CMP No. 678 of 2009 Infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition. May 20, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.