JUDGMENT : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. A writ petition was preferred before the High Court claiming certain enhanced rent on the basis of a letter dated 24.1.1996 said to have been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Headquarters Building, on the basis of directions received by him from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and he sought for appropriate directions based on that letter. 4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the Union of India and other parties to the proceedings to pay the occupation charges for the premises in question @ 15.65 per square feet with effect from 1.9.1992 and thereupon quantified the amount payable in a sum of Rs. 3,37,46,768.40 being a sum payable for 1.9.1992 to 30.10.1988 within 31.5.1999. It is also made clear that the clause requiring the execution of lease had become infructuous on the expiry of five years from 1.9.1992. When the matter was carried in appeal the same was dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave. 5. In the circumstance that the amount quantified by the learned Single Judge has already been paid to the respondents, the learned Attorney General submits that no fruitful purpose would be served in examining the matter by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents very fairly and rightly submits that the proceedings he has initiated in contempt to enforce the order made by the learned Single Judge in the writ appeal on the ground that there is no compliance will be withdrawn. It shall stand withdrawn and proceedings dropped accordingly. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that there is some arithmetical error in quantifying the amount granted by the High Court. If that is so, it is certainly open to the respondents to move an appropriate application before the High Court. This appeal is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous subject to what is stated herein.