JUDGMENT : S.D.Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 (I) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The respondent no. 3 Mohd. Ishaq filed an application for release against the petitioner Sukha. It was alleged in the release application that the petitioner is a tenant and the landlord required the accommodation for his personal use. The petitioner contested the release application on the ground that respondent no. 3 was not the owner and the landlord of the premises in dispute and in fact the petitioner is the owner of the premises. It was further alleged that the application has been moved with oblique motives in order to harass and evict the petitioner under its garb. 3. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application by an order dated 18-8-1979 as it was found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent no. 3. This order was passed on 18-8-1979 as stated above. 4. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed under section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority allowed the appeal by an order dated 20-12- 1980 and remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh of the application filed under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on merits. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20-12-1980 has filed the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and respondent no. 3 Mohd. Ishaq and, consequently, the application for release is not maintainable. He has further urged that in fact he is the owner of the premises in dispute. In D. S. Victor v. District Judge, Bareilly, 1978 AWC 605 this Court considered the question as to how far the Prescribed Authority can go into the question of title in respect of the property sought, to be released. It was laid down that if the question of title raised in the case was of complicated or difficult nature then such a decision could not be made by the Prescribed Authority. It was laid down that if the question of title raised in the case was of complicated or difficult nature then such a decision could not be made by the Prescribed Authority. In such a case it is proper that a complete adjudication of the controversy takes place by means of a regular suit. It was further observed that as to whether the Prescribed Authority can go into the question of title will depend upon the facts of each case and it was not possible to lay down any criterian exhaustively which has to be taken into consideration while deciding this question. It was further observed that where an authority finds that the question of title of the landlord has been disputed by the tenant with an ulterior motive for the purpose of delaying the disposal, the Prescribed Authority would certainly investigate into the title and decide it. In such a case, the question of title could be said to have incidently arisen for decision. Similarly where a dispute of title by the tenant appears to be frivolous, the Prescribed Authority would be fully competent to decide the same. I respectfully agree, with the decision given in the case of D. S. Victor (supra). 7. IN the instant case, the Prescribed Authority found that there was no evidence at all to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. IN appeal, the Appellate Authority considered the documents of title filed by both the parties and, thereafter, observed that respondent no. 3 Mohd. Ishaq was the owner of the property in dispute. Since voluminous evidence was there to establish the ownership on behalf of both the petitioner as well as respondent and complicated question of title was involved, it was not proper for the Appellate Authority to have gone into the question of title and decide the same. The finding recorded by it, consequently, cannot stand. The Appellate Authority has not gone into the question as to whether a relationship of landlord and tenant is established or not. If relationship of landlord and tenant is not established, the question of filing the release application does not arise. The Prescribed Authority has categorically found that there is no evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. IN this court, no evidence has been produced to show that such relationship between the landlord and tenant exists. If relationship of landlord and tenant is not established, the question of filing the release application does not arise. The Prescribed Authority has categorically found that there is no evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. IN this court, no evidence has been produced to show that such relationship between the landlord and tenant exists. The application for release was clearly not maintainable and the finding, if any, recorded in regard to ownership by the Appellate Authority is not binding on the parties. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable in law. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated- 20th December 1980. is, hereby quashed. The application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is dismissed as not maintainable. Parties arc directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.