- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the applicant has failed to prove that he is the sole owner of the disputed property. Smt. Chandan Devi is the actual owner and she had filed affidavit before the Prescribed Authority paper no.19 asserting that the disputed property came in the share of her husband under a mutual partition between the co-owners.It was also asserted in the said affidavit that Rajju alias Raja Ram was inducted by her as tenant. The release application has filed by the applicant Ramesh Kumar cannot be maintained. No evidence has been filed by Smt. Chandan Devi or the petitioner for that matter to establish that Smt. Chandan Devi is the sole owner of the property rather Municipal assessment extract for the year 1987-1992 paper no.35 of the disputed house shows that the names of both Smt. Chandan Devi and Ramesh Kumar have been recorded in the column of the owners of the building. The rent receipt in the name of Chandan Devi as owner filed by the petitioner through list 31 paper nos. 32 and 33 are of the year 2009 i.e. after filing of the release application.
(3.) The finding is that from the evidence on record it could not be proved that Smt. Chandan Devi is the sole owner rather evidence shows that applicant Ramesh Kumar is the co-owner of the property and rent receipts filed by the applicant also establish that the rent had been tendered to Ramesh Kumar by the petitioner.;