S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) List revised. No one appears for the tenant-respondent No. 3.
(2.) Heard lenared Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) This is landlords writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant-respondent No. 3 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Property in dispute is a house. Release application was registered a Rent Case No. 16 of 1988, Lakshman Sarup Mittal v. Sherpal Singh Rana, on the file of Prescribed Authority/IInd Munsif, Bulandshahr. Release application was allowed on 4th February, 1989. Against the said order tenant-respondent No. 3 filed Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 1989. Lower Appellate Court recorded the finding of bona fide need in favour of the landlord. However Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. In Para 2 of the release application it was clearly mentioned that respondent No. 3 was tenant of the house in dispute at the rate of Rs. 45 per month. In the written statement Para 2 of the release application was clearly admitted. Same thing was reiterated in Para 12 of written statement. In the additional pleas also nothing was stated against the said stand. In the entire written statement it was nowhere stated that respondent No. 3 was not the tenant. It appears that on the basis of some documents written by respondent No. 3 himself where it was stated that he was residing in the house in dispute with the permission of the landlord without payment of any rent, Lower Appellate Court held that relationship of landlord and tenant was established in between the parties. Lower Appellate Court commit an error of law in holding that there was no relationship of landlord tenant in between respondent No. 3 and landlord-petitioner inspite clear admission of respondent No. 3 to the contrary.;