Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Mishra, Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. This writ petition is directed against the orders of release passed by the Courts below on the bona fide need of the landlord for the accommodation in question. The comparative hardship also found to be tilted in favour of the landlord.

3. Challenging the orders impugned, the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the release application was filed by one of the co-owner and the consent of other co-owner of the said accommodation has not been taken, and hence it was not maintainable. Elaborating this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accommodation in dispute was let-out to the father of the petitioner by Syed Mohammad Ali Ahmed Kabir, the father of the respondent-landlord and his brother Syed Mohommad Ali Qadir. An agreement of sale was executed by the uncle of the landlord namely Syed Mohammad Ali Qadir for a portion of the premises in dispute. The sale-deed was not executed and hence Original Suit No. 425 of 1991 for specific performance of the agreement was filed which was decreed on 23.3.1998. The decree was put to execution and a sale-deed dated 12.10.1999 was executed by the Court in favour of the petitioner. As a result of it, the petitioner became co-sharer of the disputed property. The Original Suit No. 1551 of 1999 filed by respondent-landlord against the heirs of Syed Mohammad Ali Qadir for partition of the disputed property is pending. Another Suit No. 126 of 2013 filed by respondent-landlord for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 12.10.1999 is also pending. In view of these facts, the petitioner cannot be said to be the tenant of the disputed property and the release application filed by one of the co-owners without taking consent of the other co-owner of the disputed property could not be maintained. The release application was liable to be rejected as such.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has confined his arguments on the question of consent of the other co-owner.

5. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Nazar Mohammad and others v. Srimati Pushpa Devi and others, 2014(2) ARC 705, wherein it has been held that where the tenant is the co-owner, obviously his consent cannot be assumed in favour of the co-owner landlord and in such circumstances, without impleading other co-owner, the suit was not maintainable. This Court, while coming to this proposition, has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Abdul Alim v. Shekh Jamal Uddin Ansari and others, 1998(9) SCC 683.

6. In another case of Munshi Lal v. Gopal Rao and others, 2013(2) ARC 494, same view has been taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in India Umbrella Mfg. Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, 2004(3) SCC 178 and Abdul Alim (Supra).

7. In Munshi Lal (Supra), the learned Single Judge after considering two judgments of the Apex Court in Messers Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. and others v. Bhagabander Agarwalla (Dead) by Lrs. Smt. Savitri Agarwalla and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 200; 2004(3) ARC (Suppl.) 71 and in Abdul Alim (Supra) has held in paragraph 20 that there was no apparent conflict between the two authorities and relying upon these reports has observed that the landlord cannot presume to have taken consent of the tenant acquiring co-ownership rights for his own ouster. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment in Messers Indian Umbrella (Supra) has been followed wherein it was held that where the suit has been filed with the consent of one co-owner and if another co-owner withdrew his consent mid-way so as to prejuidice the other co-owner, it will not fail. The view taken by the Appellate Court in allowing the release application filed by the co-owner in the year 1992 was affirmed rejecting the contention of the tenant that he had stepped into t