(1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Mishra, Advocate appearing for the respondent.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the orders of release passed by the Courts below on the bona fide need of the landlord for the accomodation in question. The comparative hardship also found to be tilted in favour of the landlord.
(3.) Challenging the orders impugned, the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the release application was filed by one of the co-owner and the consent of other co-owner of the said accomodation has not been taken, and hence it was not maintainable. Elaborating this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accomodation in dispute was let-out to the father of the petitioner by Syed Mohammad Ali Ahmed Kabir, the father of the respondent-landlord and his brother Syed Mohommad Ali Qadir. An agreement of sale was executed by the uncle of the landlord namely Syed Mohammad Ali Qadir for a portion of the premises in dispute. The sale deed was not executed and hence Original Suit No.425 of 1991 for specific performance of the agreement was filed which was decreed on 23.03.1998. The decree was put to execution and a sale deed dated 12.10.1999 was executed by the Court in favour of the petitioner. As a result of it, the petitioner became co-sharer of the disputed property. The Original Suit No.1551 of 1999 filed by respondent-landlord against the heirs of Syed Mohammad Ali Qadir for partition of the disputed property is pending. Another Suit No. 126 of 2013 filed by respondent-landlord for cancellation of the sale deed dated 12.10.1999 is also pending. In view of these facts, the petitioner cannot be said to be the tenant of the disputed property and the release application filed by one of the co-owners without taking consent of the other co-owner of the disputed property could not be maintained. The release application was liable to be rejected as such.