A tenant who has attorned to a particular erstwhile co-owner as his sole landlord cannot question the title of such a landlord on the ground that the transaction, whereby his landlord became the sole owner of the property, was a mala fide one and not a genuine one.

( 1 ) PARTIES have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

( 2 ) DURGESH Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, filed an application on 24-4-1985 against the petitioner for release of the premises bearing No. 273 (southern portion) Mumfordganj, Allahabad, which is in his occupation. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 19-11-1987. The petitioner filled an appeal against the said order which was allowed by order dated 19-12-1988 by the IInd Addl. District Judge and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to consider the question of bona fide need afresh.

( 3 ) ONE of the pleas raised on behalf of the tenant was that Drugesh Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, was not the landlord of the building and as such he had no right to file the release application. The learned IInd Additional District Judge decided this question against the petitioner and held that respondent No. 3 was the landlord of the building in dispute. It is for quashing of this part of the appellate order that the present writ petition has been filed.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.

( 5 ) THE material on record reveals the following facts :- (1) the disputed premises were let out to the petitioner by K. N. Srivastava, father of respondent No. 3; (2) K. N. Srivastava gave written information to the petitioner on 24-10-1981 to the effect that on account of family partition, Durgesh Kumar Srivastava had become the sole owner of the disputed premises and that rent with effect from 1-10-1981 should be paid to him; (3) thereafter the petitioner paid rent to Durgesh Kumar Srivastava but took up the plea that he was not the landlord only after the release application was filed; (4) the brother of respondent No. 3, Balni Ranjan Srivastava filed, O. S. No. 156 of 1981 and in terms of the said decree the building in dispute fell in the share of respondent No. 3; and (5) the name of respondent No. 3 has been recorded over the building in dispute in the record of Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad after the decree was passed in the aforesaid civil suit.

( 6 ) THE facts and circumstances enumerated above conclusively establish that Durgesh Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, is the landlord of the building and he is fully entitled to file a release application against the petitioner.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the family settlement, on the basis of which it is alleged that respondent No. 3 has become owner of the building in dispute, is inadmissible as it is unregistered document in view of S. 49 of the Registration Act. In my opinion the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance at all. It is well settled that an oral family arrangement does not require of a memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation does not require registration as the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any right in the immovable property. That apart in the present case a declaratory suit had also been filed in which a decree has been passed on 26-11-1981. The disputed building fell in the share of respondent No. 3 in accordance with the decree passed in the suit. Respondent No. 3 is not claiming right over the property in dispute only on the basis of the family settlement but also on the ground that in Suit No. 156 of 1981 he has been held to be the owner of the property in dispute.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next contended that the decree in O. S. No. 156 of 1981 is collusive in nature and should be ignored. In support of his submission he placed reliance on Devi Das v. Mohan Lal (AIR 1982 SC 1213) and B. N. Tewari v. 3rd Addl. District Judge (1982 UPRCC 413 ). In the case of Devidas (supra) after purchasing the property