Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The petitioner-tenant is assailing the order dated 16 December 2014, passed in Rent Appeal No. 64 of 2014 arising from an order, passed in Rent Case allowing the release application of the disputed property in favour of the respondent-landlord.

2. The claim set up by the respondent-landlord was that a portion of the property being House No. 132/397 admeasuring 481 sq. yard was purchased from Sahnaz Begum by registered sale-deed dated 16 May 2005, thereafter, upon serving six months notice, the respondent-landlord filed release application setting up a bona fide need for the premises for the need of his family members, stating therein, that the respondent is residing alongwith his father in a tenanted house in one room alongwith his wife and children, hence need for the premises.

3. The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant stating that the respondent is neither owner nor landlord, the petitioner purchased a portion of property from the erstwhile owner Sri Rameshwar Prasad in the name of his wife Malka, through a document of transfer being unregistered notarized deed dated 7 February 2000.

4. The Courts below upon appreciating the material and evidence available on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner is not entitled to the disputed property on the basis of unregistered notarized sale-deed, the Court below incidently decided the issue of title in favour of respondent-landlord holding that unregistered document cannot be read in evidence, whereas the respondent, landlord vide registered sale-deed duly purchased the property from Sahnaz Begum.

5. The Prescribed Authority framed three issues:

1. relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;

2. bona fide need.

3. comparative hardship.

6. The Courts below placing reliance upon a document obtained by the landlord under Right to Information Act 2005, wherein, the petitioner made a statement before the concerned officer stating that he is the tenant of House No. 132/397, Babupurwa, Kanpur at Rs. 40/per month and is residing therein since 25 years. The said house was taken on rent from Ram Narain, the house was sold to different persons by erstwhile owner but the petitioner continued to remain tenant. It was further stated that the rent is being deposited with the son of Ram Narain, the rent receipt (paper No. 36) was also filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the finding of the Courts below regarding as to whether the landlord and tenant relationship exist between the parties.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in absence of evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, the application, under Section 21(1)(a) of Act 13 of 1972 would not be maintainable.

9. The record would reveal that the disputed property being House No. 132/397 was sold in parts by the erstwhile owner Ram Prasad, to four persons including Sahnaz Begum. The respondent landlord purchased the portion of the property from Sahnaz Begum by registered sale-deed duly executed on 13/16 May 2005. The claim set up by the petitioner is on the basis of a notarized sale-deed alleged to have been executed by Rameshwar Prasad. The Court below apart from recording that the petitioner was a tenant of erstwhile owner Rameshwar Prasad and continued as such and were justified in not placing reliance upon the unregistered and unstamped document in view of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act read with Section 35 of Stamp Act.

10. The Court below incidently decided the issue regarding ownership of the property upon taking notice of the fact that the erstwhile executant of the sale-deed Shyam Babu deposed on an affidavit clearly stating the fact that the executant had never executed any sale-deed in favour of Malka, wife of the petitioner. The appellate Court also recorded that till date, the petitioner has not filed any suit for declaration with regard to alleged sale-deed claimed by himself through his wife