The court emphasized the importance of establishing the genuine relationship of landlord and tenant and upheld the legal right of any co-owner to file a release application or suit for eviction against the tenant.

Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the court below in release application under section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It appears that the release application was filed by Surendra Kumar Mishra, one of the owners of the shop in the tenancy of Babu Lal Agarwal. The need set up was to establish his son in the business. It was stated therein that Babu Lal Agarwal had illegally delivered possession of the premises to respondent no.6,namely, Smt. Saraswati Devi( petitioner in the present writ petition) to frustrate the release application. The applicant-landlord had filed partition suit no. 992 of 1996 on account of which other co-owners of the property are annoyed and they may handover the premises in question to some stranger.

3. The release application was not contested by the tenant Babu Lal Agarwal rather Smt. Saraswati Devi raised objection on the ground that the applicant Surendra Kumar Mishra is not the owner of the property rather it is owned by one Santosh Kumar, who had entered into an agreement to deliver possession of the property to Smt. Saraswati Devi. Pursuant to this agreement the allotment proceedings had started and shop in question was alloted to Smt. Saraswati Devi on 26.11.1998.The title of the landlord Surendra Kumar Mishra has been denied by Smt. Saraswati Devi claiming herself to be a tenant of the premises in question on the basis of allotment order dated 26.11.1998.

4. While examining the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant, the prescribed authority has observed that Panchshala from the year 1987 to 1992 paper no 69 was filed in the proceedings discloses that the owners of the property were Rama Shanker son of Ram Dhani, Moti Lal son of Mannu Lal and Surendra Kumar Son of Daya Shankar Mishra. Santosh Kumar claims to be son of late Rama Shanker Mishra. In the Panchshala Babu Lal Agarwal has been mentioned as tenant of one room and a shop on the rent of Rs. 50 per month. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that from Panchshala it is established that Babu Lal Agarwal was tenant of the disputed shop and this fact is also admitted by the parties. Rather the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Babu Lal Agarwal had vacated the shop and thereafter arrangement was made between the petitioner and Santosh Kumar, one of the co-owner and the petitioner got allotment of the shop in her name.

5. Examining these facts this court finds that the release application was filed on 1.7.1998 and rent case no. 46 of 1988 was registered. The arrangement, if any, i.e. the alleged allotment order dated 26.11.1998 it is subsequent to the filing of the release application, hence on that basis relationship of landlord and tenant can not be inferred between Santosh Kumar and Smt. Saraswati Devi.

6. Tenant Babu Lal Agarwal was in occupation of the shop. He had illegally handed over the possession of the shop to Smt. Saraswati Devi. The court below has rightly concluded that landlord and tenant relationship which is the subject matter of dispute was established between Saurendra Kumar and Babu Lal. On the bonafide need it was found that no one had contested the matter.Neither Babu Lal Agarwal nor his representative had come forward to contest the matter. The need of the landlord was found genuine.

7. The appellate authority has relied upon Panchshala paper no.69 and opined that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between Surendra Kumar Mishra and Babu Lal Agarwal. Moreover Surednra Kumar Mishra admittedly is one of the co-owners of the shop in question, it cannot be said that the release application at his instance was not maintainable. It is well settled proposition of law that any one of the co-owners can file release application, suit for eviction against the tenant.

8. Challenging these findings, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in