A tenant cannot evade a release application by claiming co-ownership after purchasing property; the landlord-tenant relationship must be maintained under the Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Heard Shri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shobhit Harsh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of release passed by the prescribed authority on 15.04.2023 under Section 12(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 as well as order dated 29.03.2024 whereby the rent appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent no.3 filed a release application being Application No.6 of 2009 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Control Act’) seeking release of the premises in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant. The said premises as per the release application, comprised of one Kothri, one Khaprail, one tin shed and land appurtenant thereto, and the same was situate at Gata Nos.339, 340/1 & 346 in District Bahraich. In the said application, it was stated that respondent no.3 was aged about 16 years and the tenancy was created by respondent no.4 in favour of the father of the petitioner some time in the month of January, 1972. Respondent No.3 further pleaded that the property in question was bonafidely required for his two sons who were unemployed and would be opening a business of selling building materials. It was also stated that respondent no.3 was due to retire and would open a shop of general merchant at one portion of the premises after retirement. The petitioner rendered appearance and filed reply to the release application and argued that the tenancy in question was created in favour of the father of the petitioner by respondent no.4 herein. It was stated that respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 are real brothers. It was further pleaded that the property under tenancy was ad-measuring 18 ft. by 175 ft. It was also stated that the rent in question was paid by the petitioner to respondent no.4 always and thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant exist in between the petitioner and respondent no.4 only, and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and respondent no.3. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was running a timber business and sawmill from the property in question and the rent in question was paid to respondent no.4. It is stated that father of the petitioner expired on 16.11.1995 and thereafter, the tenancy continued in favour of the petitioner on a yearly rent of Rs.2,400/- which was being paid to respondent no.4.

4. It was further pleaded that during the pendency of the petition, respondent no.4 sold off land ad-measuring 2000 sq.ft. out of the total land owned by respondent nos.3 & 4 to the petitioner and his wife vide registered sale deed dated 24.12.2008. Another portion of the share of respondent no.4 ad-measuring 1298.74 sq.ft. was sold in favour of the petitioner vide registered deed dated 13.10.2011 and third sale deed was executed from the share of respondent no.4 ad-mesuring 3701.6 sq.ft. vide registered deed dated 13.02.2012 and thereafter, the names of the petitioner and his wife were duly mutated in the revenue records.

5. In the light of the said, a defence was taken that after purchasing the property from respondent no.4, the petitioner had become the co-owner of the property and as such, the release application was not maintainable against him. It has been pleaded in the petition that no partition by metes and bounds took place in between respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 or after purchasing the s