An unregistered lease deed cannot be admitted in evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, as it is required to be registered under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

S. K. Dhaon, J.

1. This is a tenant's petition. It stems from proceedings initiated by Sri Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, respondent No. 3, hereinafter referred to as 'landlord' under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the release of a non-residential accommodation (the shop) in his favour. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the landlord. In appeal the VIth Additional District Judge (Appellate Authority) reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority and accepted the application of the landlord.

2. The averments in the application of the landlord were these. Smt. Dulari Devi, the mother of the landlord and Sri Krishna Kumar Agarwal, the respondent No. 2, hereinafter referred to as 'Agarwal', was the owner of house No. 81/111, Zero Road, Allahabad. This house had two shops in the ground-floor. One Smt. Shanti Devi was the tenant of one of the shops. Smt. Dulari Devi got the said shop released to set up in business Agarwal. Since 31st January, 1979 the said shop came in exclusive occupation of Agarwal, who is carrying on his wholesale business therein. On 5th February, 1971 Smt. Dulari Devi let out the shop to the petitioner by means of a rent note which was executed by Smt. Dulari Devi, Sri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, the eldest brother of the petitioner and the petitioner. Sri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal and the petitioner joined the rent note merely for the purpose of realising rent and other purposes. On 4th October, 1979 Smt. Dulari Devi executed a registered Will whereby she bequeathed the aforesaid house in favour of the petitioner and Agarwal. She died on 25th May, 1980 and after her death the petitioner and Agarwal became the owner of the aforesaid house. On the basis of mutual settlement between the petitioner and Agarwal the shop fell in the ownership of the petitioner and he (the petitioner) was entitled to realise rent to the exclusion of Agarwal. The landlord was engaged in business in partnership with his elder brother and one Smt. Vidya Gupta. Differences cropped up between the landlord and his brother and eventually the landlord withdrew himself from the partnership business with effect from 31st December, 1981. The landlord had been rendered unemployed without any business. He had urgent and bonafide need of the shop. Agarwal has no objection to the shop being released for the exclusive use of the landlord. The petitioner was essentially engaged in a wholesale business in the shop. He had another two door shop and a godown. He had also purchased a palatial building which consisted of 12 rooms and a big hall on the ground-floor for business purposes and this building was situate in the same business locality as the shop. Therefore, the petitioner had an alternative accommodation of his own. The petitioner will not suffer any hardship if the shop was released in favour of the landlord. Agarwal had been arrayed as one of the opposite parties to the application for release by way of abundant caution.

The petitioner filed a counter affidavit before the prescribed authority with these averments The need of the landlord was neither genuine nor bonafide. He carried on business in the shop both on the retail as well as wholesale basis. The terms of letting of the shop were reduced into writing. One of the terms was that the petitioner would continue to be the tenant of the shop as long as he wanted to and the landlord could not evict him even on the ground of personal need. All the three executants of the rent note were the landlords of the shop. The alleged mutual settlement between the landlord and Agarwal was a collusive transaction which was entered into with a malafide intention of compelling the petitioner to enhance the rent exorbitantly. The landlord had not withdrawn from the cold storage business and he continued to be a partner thereof. The petitioner would suffer a greater hardship if he was e