The central legal point established is that under the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, the authorization to realize rent as a landlord confers the right to maintain a release application, regardless of ownership.

( 1 ) UDAI Singh Bhanuvanshi, petitioner, who is the tenant of residential accommodation on the first floor of house No. 118/408. Kaushalpuri, Kanpur Nagar (for short called the accommodation) comprising of two rooms, one store dochhatti verandah, aangan and bath room at the rate of Rs. 60 per month, has approached this Court by filing present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated august 25, 2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) allowing landlords Rent Appeal No. 243 of 1995, Kunj Behari Tewari v. Udai Singh Bhanuwanshi, under Section 22 U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for shorf called the Act1) arising out of the judgment and order dated November 8, 1995 passed by Prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act in Rent Control Case No. 157 of 1993, Kunj Behari v. Udai Singh, dismissing the release application filed by the landlord Kunj Behari, son of brahm Dutt Tewari, under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ).

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner shows that the accommodation is in the tenancy of the petitioner. Father of the petitioner was tenant and Smt. Sukh Devi and Ram Dayal Awasthi were the landlords. Aforementioned Ram Dayal Awasthi executed a will with respect to the premises including the accommodation in favour of Vinod Behari and Shyam Behari sons of Brahm Dutt. Ram Dayal Awasthi having died, said Vinod Behari and Shyam Behari inherited the property through the will. Kunj Behari Tewari respondent. another son of said Brahm Dutt Tewari (real brother of Vinod Behari and Shyam Behari) claimed to be the owner landlord of certain property including the accommodation by virtue of Court decree dated 14. 1. 1991 in Suit No, 1310 of 1989, Kunj Behari v. Shyam Behari. passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The said Kunj Behari filed release application dated 2. 4. 1994 before the Prescribed Authority under section 21 of the Act claiming to be the landlord.

( 3 ) IT is categorically mentioned in the release application that registered notice dated September 3, 1993 was sent through advocate to the petitioner-tenant and the same was served upon the petitioner on September 9, 1993 (Para 2 of the release application Annexure-2 to the writ petition pp. 31 of the writ paper book ). Release claimed for personal use of the landlord vide release application under Section 21 of the Act. The contesting respondent petitioner-tenant filed written statement. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the release application primarily on the ground that Kunj behari Tewari failed to establish his status as owner landlord.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved, Kunj Behari Tewari filed Rent Appeal No. 243 of 1995 and the said rent appeal has been allowed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar, vide judgment and order dated 25. 8. 2001.

( 6 ) AFTER discussing the effect of the partition decree between Kunj Behari Tewari and aforementioned Vinod Behari and Shyam Behari as well as the registered notice dated september 3, 1993, sent to the tenant-petitioner by registered post, keeping in view the fact that kunj Behari Tewari was authorised/ assigned the rights to realise rent as landlord of the accommodation from the tenant with respect to the accommodation in question and the tenant was further required to pay rent to said Kunj Behari Tewari.

( 7 ) IN lower appellate courts Judgment (at particular page 66 of the writ petition) shows that Kunj behari Tewari was authorised not only to realise the rent but also authorised to realise the same in his capacity as landlord of the accommodation vis-a-vis the tenant-petitioner.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act the landlord alone, who is the owner of the accommodation, can maintain