AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
This is tenant's petition directed against concurrent findings of fact recorded by Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 21 1 (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as affirmed in Rent Control Appeal No. 34 of 2008 by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Haridwar.
Learned counsel for the respondent/ landlady submitted that petitioner has vacated the shop in question long back as, after construction of new road, the shop in question had gone below the road level. He further submitted that walls of the shop have now been broken and shutter on the front side of the shop has also been removed. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced in Court today certain photographs, which support the statement made by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and he endorses the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent that shop in question has been vacated by the petitioner, based on instructions received to him by the petitioner.
Since the petitioner has voluntarily vacated the shop in question during the pendency of the present writ petition, therefore, the cause of action does not survive.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.