Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Om Prakash Advocate holding brief of Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned Counsel for the respondents. This petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment and order dated 1.7.1981 and 26.10.1983 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively whereby the application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was allowed and order for eviction of the petitioner was passed.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has filed two applications alongwith affidavit to place on record subsequent events. The first application is No. 28199 of 1997 by means of which it has been brought on record that the need which was set up by Umesh Chand husband of respondent No. 4 has vanished as Umesh Chand died on 11.11.1989. In the same application it was also brought on record that Sri Jassi Ram respondent No. 3 has also expired on 9.8.1983. It was therefore, prayed that the need having been vanished for setting up a business in the shop in dispute, the release application was liable to be dismissed. The second application being Misc. Application No. 53655 of 2001 was filed placing on record, copy of the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 4, and her children in favour of one Pradeep Kumar and Umesh Kumar whereby the shop in dispute was transferred in their favour. This sale deed is dated 31.9.1998 and registered on 5.6.1998. In view of the sale deed, the shop in dispute, the need even if any which survive after the death of Umesh Chand and Jassi Ram, completely vanished. In the circumstances, the order of release passed by the Court below in view of the subsequent development has to be set aside. The purchasers may set up any need which they can pursue for their own need as provided under law. In the circumstances, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the release application is rejected.;