- (1.) Sri Tarun Verma has filed caveat on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 8. He states that after the delivery of the Appellate Court's judgment respondent No. 7 has died. Sri A.N. Bhargava learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below has recorded wrong findings with respect to the purchase of the house from Joint Hindu Family Fund. In his submissions, there is no such recital in the sale-deed that the property has been purchased from the Joint Hindu Family Fund for the benefit of all the members of Hindu Joint Family therefore in view of Benami Transaction Ban Act this plea is barred. He has further submitted that the need of Sri Sanjai Kumar has vanished as he has obtained an alternative accommodation on rent during the pendency of the litigation and so far as the need of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is concerned that cannot be taken into consideration, in view of section 3(g) of the Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) Refuting the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that merely because the landlord has obtained a shop on rent for his livelihood will not preclude the respondent-landlord to pursue the release application and it cannot be said that his need has vanished. The landlord cannot be compelled to have a shop on rent.
(3.) Matter requires consideration.;