S.K. PURI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, counter -affidavit has been filed. Both the learned counsel have agreed that this writ petition may be decided finally at this stage. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that on the application filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 for allotment of the building in dispute a vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 17th February, 1986. Thereafter on 3rd April, 1986 building was allotted in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4. Both these orders were challenged in revision before the learned District Judge, Dehradun. By the impugned order dated 5th January, 1987 the revision has been dismissed aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order dated 17th February, 1986 declaring vacancy of the building in dispute was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to Sri S.K. Puri and as such the order was illegal and void as Sri S.K. Puri was tenant in building. Since the declaration of vacancy was illegal, the allotment order made in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, even assuming that petitioner could have grievance against the order declaring vacancy and order of allotment in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4, it has come to an end on his death. The grievance raised was confined to him alone and as no person who may lawfully claim the inheritance of the alleged tenancy rights of petitioner has come forward, the cause of action does not survive and in these circumstances, it is not necessary for this court to examine the merits of the controversy involved in the present writ petition. The position of the persons who have been substituted in place of petitioner has already been discussed in the order allowing the substitution application.