B. N. Sapru, J. - (1.) MAHMUDUL Haq filed an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 praying that the tenant Bachcha Lal be evicted from the accommodation in dispute.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority found that Bachcha Lai had been a tenant of Mahmudul Haq and his brothers and there had been a partition between them in partition suit no. 73 of 1977 as a result of which the entire property in the tenancy of Bachcha Lal had come to the share of Mahmudul Haq. He further found that Mahmudul Haq did not have any accommodation and Bachcha Lal had alternative accommodation. He accordingly allowed the application under section 21 (1) (a) filed by Mahmudul Haq. Bachcha Lal was aggrieved and he filed an appeal. The appellate authority was of the view that since all the owners of the property prior to the partition had not joined in the application, the application filed by Mahmudul Haq alone was not maintainable. In taking this view the learned appellate authority relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Devi Charon v. III Additional District Judge, 1980 ARC page 381.
(3.) IN the case of Devi Charon v. III Additional District Judge (supra), on whose basis the lower appellate authority decided the case, the position was that Jade Ram and Asha Ram were co-owners of the two shops of which Devi Charan was the tenant. There were certain transfers and thereafter there was a partition between the co-owners and under that partition decree in a suit for partition the shop in dispute came to the share of Mohar Singh and the other shop to the share of Gyan Chand. Mohar Singh thereafter filed an application under section 21 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation - of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against Devi Charan. This application was allowed by the lower appellate authority. Thereafter there was a writ petition filed in the High Court. The learned Judge, deciding the case, took the view that the partition between the co-owners of the two shops did not have any effect on the tenancy of Devi Charan who continued to be the tenant of both the shops under one tenancy and as such only Mohar Singh alone was not competent to file an application under section 21 (1) of the Act against Devi Charan. The learned Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and dismissed the application under section 21 (1) filed by Mohar Singh. The case is only authority for the proposition that where there is a tenancy of a large area and as a result of a partition between the co-owners, a small area comes to the exclusive share of a co-owner, he alone is not competent to terminate the tenancy of the tenant whose tanancy continued over the whole area. The net result is that it has been held that the partition among co-owners does not result in splitting up of the pre-existing tenancy. This decision is of no assistance to Bachcha Lal because here the entire tenanted accommodation in possession of Bachcha Lal has, as a consequence of partition between co-owners, came to the exclusive share of Mahmudul Haq who became the landlord of Bachcha Lal as defined under section 3 (j) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In this situation Mahmudul Haq alone was competent to institute an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act as against Bachcha Lal.;