Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of Misc. Case No. 5 of 1999. The release application was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/ Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad, through order dated 18.1.2001. Against the said judgment and order, landlord respondent filed Rent Appeal No.1 of 2001. A.D.J., Court No. 2, Moradabad allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 8.7.2002, hence this writ petition by the tenant.

3. Property in dispute is a shop, frontage of which is 11 feet and depth is 22 feet. Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the tenant petitioner, during argument, categorically stated that tenant petitioner was ready to retain half portion of the shop and surrender possession of rest half portion of the shop in dispute to the landlord.

4. The shop in dispute belonged to the family of the landlord respondent. Family members got their properties partitioned and said partition was recognised in O.S. No. 556 of 1998 also. Trial Court wrongly held that by virtue of the said partition, applicant landlord respondent became owner but not landlord. Tenancy started in the year 1985 and rent note was also executed in between the tenant petitioner and father of the landlord.

5. The Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 998, Sk. Sattar Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate has held that tenant cannot question partition among landlords unless it is shown to have been designed to create ground of eviction under Rent Control Act. Tenant only asserted that partition decree was not registered.

6. In any case, even if partition is ignored, respondent is co-owner and release application may be filed by a co-owner also vide Gopal Das v. A.D.J., 1987 (1) ARC 281 (FB). Moreover, the Supreme Court in AIR 2004 SC 1321, India Umbrella Manufacturing Co., M/s. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla; and AIR 2006 SC 1471, “Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, has held that even one of the landlords can file eviction proceedings against tenant and he need not show the consent of the other landlords. No other brother, sister or father of the respondent ever raised any objection against the partition.

7. In the agreement/rent note dated 24.7.1985, it was mentioned that tenancy would start from 30.9.1985 and until 30.9.2005, Ram Ji father of landlord respondent would receive the rent. Under the said agreement, it was mentioned that the tenancy was being created for 20 years with effect from 30.9.1985 and after 20 years landlord would be entitled to get possession of half of the shop in dispute. Copy of the rent note dated 24.7.1985 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said rent note, rent was fixed at Rs.1500/- per month. It was mentioned that landlord was carrying on his business from the said shop, however his business was not giving good returns, hence he wanted to let out the said shop. It was further stated that tenancy would start from 30.9.1985. Under Clause-5, it was provided that in case after 20 years from the date of execution of the rent note, landlord would desire to start his own business, then tenant would deliver possession of half portion of the shop with the condition that rent of the remaining portion would be Rs.1000/- per month. The rent note is not registered.

8. Under proviso to Section 21 (4) of the Act, it is provided that no order for eviction on the ground of bona fide need shall be made in the case of tenancy created for a fixed term by a registered lease before the expiry of such term. As in the instant case, lease is not registered, hence the said proviso is not applicable. Accordingly, it is not necessary to decide that as to what would be the effect of expiry of period of 20 years during pendency of appeal even though release