- (1.) Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) This petition is directed against an order dated 20.3.2010 by which an impleadment application filed by the petitioner in a pending release application has been rejected.
(3.) It appears that the contesting respondent No. 1, Rohit Kumar, filed application No. 11 of 2007 before the Prescribed Authority for release of the disputed shop inter alia with the allegation that the proforma respondent No. 2, Hemant Kumar, was a tenant of the disputed premises but he was engaged in the business of property development and was not utilising the shop which was required for his and for his family's pressing and bona fide need. The contesting respondent filed his written statement alleging that his mother Shakuntala Devi was the original tenant and after her death, others became joint tenants and he resisted the release on various grounds. During pendency of the release application, the petitioners -claiming to be sons of Shakuntala Devi, filed an application for impleadment and after hearing the parties, the same has been rejected.;