Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Pankaj Agawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjiv Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 30.11.2000 passed by Prescribed Authority releasing accommodation in question in favour of respondent No. 1-landlord by allowing application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) and order dated 25.5.2007 dismissing petitioner’s appeal.

3. The dispute relates to House No. 25, Civil Lines, Lalitpur wherein part of premises is under tenancy of petitioner. The respondents are co-owners of house in dispute. Release application, however, was preferred by respondent No. 1, Arun Kumar Tadaiya impleading co-owners as defendant No. 2 to 9 in his application registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 1992 before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lalitpur. The ground set up is that accommodation is needed for residence and advocate’s chamber of his son Anurag and Anupam. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 1 i.e. present petitioner-tenant already had another residential accommodation i.e. house No. 800 constructed at Aajadpura, Lalitpur, in which tenant is residing alongwith family and therefore, the building should be released.

4. The Prescribed Authority accepted the claim set up by landlord on both the questions namely bona fide need and comparative hardship and vide judgment dated 30.11.2000, allowed release application and thereagainst petitioner’s Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2000 has been dismissed by District Judge, Lalitpur vide impugned judgment dated 25.5.2007.

5. It is contended that since only one of the co-landlords has come up for seeking release of accommodation in question and other landlords have not joined him, therefore, Courts below erred in law in allowing release application.

6. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. In the context of co-owner, it has been held that a suit filed by co-owner would not fail merely because other co-owners are not arrayed as party in the suit.

7. In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath and others, AIR 1976 SC 2335, a similar dispute came to be considered before a three Judge Bench of Apex Court. Relying on certain earlier decisions of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay High Courts, it was argued that one of the co-owner without impleading other co-owners cannot maintain a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(f) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The argument in particular based on the decisions in Bollye Satee and another v. Akrarn Ally and others, (1879) ILR 4 Cal 961; Kattusheri Pishareth Kanna Pisharody v. Vallotil Manakel Narayanan Somayajipad and others, (1878) ILR 3 Mad 234; Balakrishna Sakharam v. Mow Krishna Dabholkar, (1897) ILR 21 Bom 154; and, Dwarka Nath Mitter and others v. Tara Prosunna Roy and others, (1890) ILR 17 Cal 160. The Apex Court found none of the aforesaid decisions fortify the above submission. Rejecting the same, in para 11, the Court observed, that, relations between parties being that of landlord and tenant, only a landlord can terminate the tenancy and institute suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning title of landlord by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Under general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant, the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. It is, therefore, inconceivable to throw out the suit on account of non-impleading of other co-owners as such. Reliance placed on English authorities was also negatived by Apex Court observing that English principle is abhorrent to the Indian conception and structure of social life of our country with its benign sensitivity and ties, which is not based on pure individualism. Having said so, the Apex Court approved a passage on the concept of ownership from the celebrated authority of “Jurisprudence” of Salmond in para 24