The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's statements did not amount to denial of title as per the Act, and the benefit of Section 20(4) was wrongly given to the landlord.

S. U. Khan, J.—This is tenant’s writ petition against whom suit for eviction (S.C.C. Suit No. 105 of 1994) filed by landlord respondent has been decreed on the ground of denial of title alone. Question of benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was decided in favour of tenant petitioner. The suit was decreed by J.S.C.C., Jhansi through judgment and decree dated 26.2.2000. Tenant petitioner filed a revision against the said judgment and decree being S.C.C. Revision No. 40 of 2000. Revisional court dismissed the revision by judgment and order dated 20.10.2003, hence this writ petition.

2. According to the courts below, in the written statement filed by tenant in earlier proceedings initiated against him by landlord under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Case No. 45 of 1993) on the file of prescribed authority/Civil Judge Jhansi, tenant petitioner denied the title of landlord respondent. Copy of release application is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It was filed by Sita Ram Likhdhari, father of landlord respondent and landlord respondent Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal. Just after filing of the release application, applicant No. 1 of the release application, i.e., Sita Ram Likhdhari died. After his death petitioner tenant filed written statement in the release application. In the said written statement it was stated that neither Sita Ram Likhdhari was the sole owner/landlord nor after his death his son Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal became the sole owner/landlord of the property in dispute but they were only co-owner/co-landlord. It was further stated that Sita Ram Likhdhari also left behind several sons including Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal hence Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal was only co-owner/landlord. In para 19 of the said written statement it was specifically stated that tenant never accepted Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal as sole owner/landlord. In the written statement filed in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition also similar plea was raised. In the suit-giving rise to the instant writ petition various documents were filed to show that Sita Ram Likhdhari and after his death plaintiff Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal was the sole owner/landlord of the shop in dispute. In the oral statement tenant petitioner also admitted that Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, plaintiff was the sole owner/landlord. Questioning the derivative title does not amount to denial of title as mentioned in Section 20 (2) (f) of the Act. In this regard reference may be made to an earlier judgment delivered by me in Harold William v. Xth Additional District Judge, Bareilly, 2004 (1) AWC 132 : 2003 (2) ARC 504, in which I placed reliance upon several Supreme Court authorities. In AIR 1975 SC 398, it has been held that the plea that plaintiff is only co-owner/landlord does not amount to denial of title :

“The defendant had admitted that he was the tenant under the plaintiffs but was merely asserting that there were some more landlords of the premises in question. It was not a case of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties..................”

“In the instant case, the plea of the defendant has been that the plaintiffs being landlords of the suit premises for a moiety of share could not alone claim a decree for eviction against him. Such a plea set up by the defendant to resist the suit for eviction was a plea qua-tenant and not de hors it.” (Para 6)

3. Defendant petitioner in his written statement filed in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act did not say that Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal was not the landlord. He only said that he was only co-landlord. Admitting a person to be co-landlord is clearly an admission to the effect that he is landlord. A co-landlord is also landlord.

4. In my opinion, therefore, the statement of the petitioner in his written statement filed in the earlier case under Section 21 of the Act as well as in the written statement filed in the suit did not amount to denial of t