The legal principle established is that the definition of landlord in the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 includes any person entitled to receive rent from the tenant, irrespective of ownership.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenants petition under Article 226. Constitution of India.

( 2 ) A release application. Parwati Tandon and others v. Sheetal Prasad Kesharwani, Case No. 35 of 1993, was filed by the landlords (contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 6) under Section 21 (1) (a ). U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972. U. P. Act No. XIII. of 1972. (for short called the Act) contending that first floor portion of House No. 43/168b. Chowk. Kanpur Nagar, comprised of two rooms and open space (8 x 12) (called accommodation in question) is in the tenancy @ Rs. 15 p. m.

( 3 ) RELEASE was claimed on the ground of their genuine, bona fide, personal need and also that their hardship was more as compared to that of the tenant.

( 4 ) TENANT-PETITIONER opposed release application primarily on the ground that the landlords had no valid title or right under law because will [executed by the erstwhile owner/landlord Laloo mal in favour of Smt. Ratan Devi - predecessor in interest of Parwati Tandon and others) did not permit property including accommodation in question to be partitioned. Laloo Mal had three daughters one of whom (Smt. Ratan Devi) was made executor of the Will. It is admitted to the parties that said Ratan Devi had executed a lease-deed in favour of Smt. Parwati Tandon, respondent No. 3.

( 5 ) BEFORE the Prescribed Authority, an application and an affldavit-annexing a document (called kabzanama dated 13. 6. 1994] was filed on 21. 4. 1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). It was contended that the document [paper No. 82) may be read in evidence. On the basis of the kabjanama, an attempt was made to show that landlord had acquired another accommodation. Execution of kabjanama was admitted by landlords but in defence, they contended that kabjanama was got executed by way of security to protect the loan of Rs. 3,50,000 taken by them from one Smt. Shahnaz Begum and she got kabzanama executed to protect realisation of her loan amount.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondents (who had appeared as caveator) placed for perusal of this Court a certified copy of the order sheet of Rent Case No. 35 of 1993. Petitioner had no objection to it. Order of 16th January, 1997, this indicates that tenant had earlier filed an application (paper No. 68) for issuing commission to prove that house (subject-matter of alleged kabzanama) had come in possession of the landlords. Prescribed Authority granted fifteen days time to the tenant to file a copy of the sale deed. It is not disputed at the bar that sale deed was never filed in spite of opportunity given to the tenant.

( 7 ) THE Prescribed Authority aide order dated 21. 4. 1997, (Writ Annexure-7), held that there is no need for summoning Smt. Shahnaz Begum as witness as execution of kabzanama was not denied. The affidavit (paper No. 82 Ga) was, however, taken on record as part of evidence.

( 8 ) PRESCRIBED Authority aide judgment and order dated 29. 11. 1997, allowed the release application (Writ Annexure-10 ).

( 9 ) TENANT filed Rent Appeal No. 3 of 1998, under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17. 2. 2000 [writ Annexure-13 ).

( 10 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Writ Petition is finally decided at the admission stage with the consent of the counsel.

( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that Paper Nos. 80 and 82, which were brought on record were part of the evidence but they have not been referred and considered by the two courts in their judgments and it is manifest error apparent on the face of record.

( 12 ) THE petitioner, however, failed to show anything from the memo of appeal or from the petition that these documents were at all referred to and relied upon at the time of hearing before the Courts below. Tenant was evidently conscious of the fact that his theory of landlords acquiring house on the basis of alleged kabzanama had no force and it was not worth canvassing before the