two rooms claimed to be in occupation of Respondent No.1, as agent of the Court Receiver and without payment of royalty or security, was on the express footing that Respondent No.1 had all along been using, and even now requires, the two rooms for residence of himself and his family. At no stage in the pending appeal, before the order was passed on 7 May 2014, had the Respondent indicated that he was in possession of, and using, a bungalow of more than 2000 sq.ft. at Khinger village near IL Palazzo Hotel. In fact, in his reply filed in the review petition, Respondent No.1 has not disputed his residence in the bungalow at Khinger. All that the Respondent mentions in his reply to the review petition is that the two rooms in the hotel are his permanent residence; that all official documents, fax documents and administrative documents have the address of the hotel as his permanent residence; and that it would cause great difficulty to Respondent No.1 if this permanent address has to be changed temporarily. It is also submitted by Respondent No.1 that the bungalow at Khinger is not habitable round the year; that residence at this bungalow is not practicable due to its distant location, extreme weather conditions, etc. However, Respondent No.1 has not said that he does not actually use the bungalow as his residence.
