- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioner is the landlord and had filed a suit against the respondent No. 4 for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 from the shop in dispute. The petitioner alleged that he is the owner of the shop in dispute and that the shop was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00 and that the tenant was in arrears of rent from1-5- 1974 to 3-4-1978. It was also alleged that the tenant had sub- let the shop to one Liaqat Ali and accordingly a composite notice of demand of tenancy was served upon the respondents and inspite of the service of the aforesaid notice, the respondents did not vacate the shop in dispute nor paid the arrears of rent.
(2.) THE respondent No. 3 contested the suit and submitted that the rate of rent was Rs. 22. 00 per month and not Rs. 100. 00 per month and that the petitioner had purchased the shop in dispute on 22- 1-1975 and that the rent was paid to the former landlord upto December 1974 and thereafter, the rent was deposited under Section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE respondent No. 3 further denied that he had sub-let the shop in question and further submitted that the petitioner was not the sole owner of the property in dispute. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the rate of rent was Rs. 22 per month and not Rs. 100. 00 per month. The trial Court further found that the defendant was not in arrears of rent. The trial Court, however, found that the defendant had sub-let the shop in question and therefore, decreed the suit under Section 20 (e) of the Act. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court the defendant filed a revision, which was allowed. The revisional Court held that the notice determining the tenancy was invalid inasmuch as the notice had not been given by all the co-owners of the property in question and that the petitioner alone had given the notice, which was insufficient. The revisional Court held that since the tenancy was not determined, the defendant could not be evicted from the premises in question.
(3.) THE petitioner has now filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed in revision. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. A. Zaidi, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. In paragraph No. 13 of the counter-affidavit, the defendant has stated that he had purchased the shop in dispute from the co-owners, by means of two registered sale deed and therefore, the defendant had now become the co-owner of the shop in question and that his name has also been mutated in the Municipal records. This averment has not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. The Supreme Court in Abdul Alim v. Shaikh Jamal Uddin Ansari and others, 1992 All CJ 1154, held: "both the trial Court and the appellate Court were fully justified in holding that the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable because the appellant tenant had, in the meanwhile acquired co-ownership rights in the demised shop. The change of status of the tenant to that of being an equal co-owner of the unpartitioned property, would, therefore, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the release application was not maintainable. ";