Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri N.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the tenantpetitioner and Sri L.K. Gupta, learned counsel for landlord respondent no. 3 at the admission stage.
(2.) Property in dispute is two rooms residential accommodation having other amenities like veranda and kitchen etc. also. Petitioner is tenant of the accommodation in dispute since 22.7.1956 when it was allotted to him by R.C. & E.O. The rate of rent is Rs. 20 per month since start of the tenancy. Respondent no. 3 Mehboob Ahmad Siddiqui filed release application against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 80 of 1982. The Prescribed Authority/IV Add. Civil Judge, Lucknow allowed the release application on 8.8.1985. Against the said order tenantpetitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 62 of 1985. Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow through judgment and order dated 20.9.1988 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. The appeal had been allowed on the ground that when release application was filed father of the applicant Mehboob Ahmad Siddiqui owner of the house in dispute was alive, hence applicant had no right to file release application. The version of the applicant no. 3 that the house in dispute had been orally gifted to him by his father was not believed and in my opinion rightly. Against the order dated 20.9.1988 respondent no. 3 filed writ petition no. 120(R/C) of 1989. This Court through order dated 31.8.2009 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Lower Appellate Court to decide the release application on merit. Writ petition was allowed on the ground that during the pendency of the writ petition father of the petitioner had died and petitioner had become co-sharer of the property in dispute. It was also mentioned that "it is also not in dispute between the parties that application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can be moved and maintained by one of the co-sharer/ landlord showing his need."
(3.) In view of Full Bench Authority reported in 1987 (1) ARC 281 Gopal Das v. A.D.J. release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 may be filed even by one of the co-landlords without impleading other colandlords as proforma opposite parties. The Full Bench declared last clause of Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 requiring all the co-landlords to sign the Release Application as ultra vires. Supreme Court in India Umbrella Manufacturing Co., M/s. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, AIR 2004 SC 1321 : 2004 (3) ARC Suppl 71 and Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, AIR 2006 SC 1471 has also held that one of the co-landlords even without impleading other co-landlord as proforma respondents can maintain eviction proceedings against tenant.;