JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - The landlord being aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.1985 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Jhansi rejecting the application under Section 21(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the release of the disputed premises has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioners filed the application for release of part of the accommodation of House Nos. 76, 77, Hafariyan, Jhansi, claiming that on the basis of family partition dated 15.12.1982, they have received the disputed property in their share. The petitioners have also received House No. 9 under the aforesaid settlement which was confirmed in Civil Suit No. 264 of 1983. The accommodation in House No. 9 which is in occupation of the landlord is insufficient to meet the requirement of the family members, consisting of self, son, daughter-in-law and two minor sons and as such they require the disputed premises which consists of two rooms, one kitchen, court-yard and latrine etc. The accommodation at the disposal of the petitioners is only four rooms without the facility of kitchen, latrine and bathroom. 3. The tenant opposite party contested the application with the allegation that he is tenant for the last 100 years and previously they were paying the rent to Smt. Vidya Devi and they have never paid any rent to the petitioner nor they have any knowledge that by virtue of some partition in the family the petitioners are the owners of the disputed accommodation. There is no relation of landlord and tenant and as such the present application is not maintainable. There is nothing on the record to show the alleged partition dated 15.12.1982 and the share of the petitioner in the disputed house to claim the rights of the owner and landlord of the disputed premises. It was further alleged that the petitioner's need is not bonafide and genuine. The alleged partition is a fake and sham transaction. The landlord is in possession of two rooms, courtyard and kitchen and other facilities in House No. 9 and the family only consists of Smt. Ram Kali and two sons who are presently living whereas the eldest son Anil Kumar is in service with Punjab National Bank posted at Baru Sagar. The two daughters of the petitioner are already married and they are residing with their husbands. 4. The two daughters of the petitioner are already married and they are residing with their husbands. 4. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application for release by order dated 21.9.1986 holding that by virtue of the partition dated 15.12.1982 which was confirmed in the compromise petition in Suit No. 264 of 1983 by order dated 26.9.1983 house Nos. 76 and 77 ?rd of House No. 9 came in the share of the petitioners. Earlier smt. Vidya Devi was the landlady and as she had not objected that the petitioners are not the owners and landlords of the disputed premises and as such by partition they have become the owners and landlords of the disputed premises. With regard to the bonafide need of the landlords it was held that the accommodation at House No. 9 in which they had ?rd share consists of only four small rooms and there is no facility of latrine and bathrooms. The need of the landlord was held to be genuine as the accommodation at his disposal was found to be insufficient and unsuitable considering the requirement and status of the family. The son was shortly to be married and in absence of any kitchen, latrine and bathroom, the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine. As regards the comparative hardship, the tenant who owns and runs a two seater vehicle has sufficient income and he can arrange for some alternative accommodation. The landlord would be put to greater hardship. 5. The order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside mainly on the ground that merely by stating that a partition has taken on 15.12.1982 and it was confirmed in suit by compromise on 26.4.1983 would not enable the petitioners to be treated as landlord of the premises and to claim that there was relationship of landlord and tenant. It was further held that even the partition deed dated 15.12.1982 was not brought on record to establish that the disputed house came to the share of the petitioners. The landlord has not brought on record any material to show that the tenant has paid any rent to them or to have accepted them as his landlords. It was further held that even the partition deed dated 15.12.1982 was not brought on record to establish that the disputed house came to the share of the petitioners. The landlord has not brought on record any material to show that the tenant has paid any rent to them or to have accepted them as his landlords. The tenant was paying the rent to Smt. Vidya Devi who was the landlady and the petitioners have not even filed any notice issued by them to the tenant informing them of the partition and the disputed house having come to their share. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be treated to be the landlord of the disputed house and the present petition on their behalf is not maintainable. 6. While considering the needs, it was alleged that now in the family of the landlord, only two minor sons are there apart from the landlady. House No. 9 is a big house containing all the amenities and as the alleged partition has been set up only for the purposes of this case, it cannot be said that the facility of latrine and bathroom is not available. Moreover by minor alterations, the latrine and bathroom may be constructed. In this background, the need of the landlord was not found to be bonafide and genuine while comparing the hardship; the learned Judge held that the tenant earns his livelihood by playing two seater vehicle and with his meager income he would be put to greater hardship if he is evicted. 7. The order dated 17.8.1985 has been impugned in the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge committed a manifest error of law in holding that the petitioner is not the landlord and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the present application under Section 21 of the Act is not maintainable. The learned Counsel further contended that the factum of partition cannot be denied and since there are only four small rooms now in possession of the landlord without there being the facility of kitchen, latrine and bathroom, the learned Judge erroneously rejected the release application. 8. The learned Counsel further contended that the factum of partition cannot be denied and since there are only four small rooms now in possession of the landlord without there being the facility of kitchen, latrine and bathroom, the learned Judge erroneously rejected the release application. 8. The main question to be considered in the present case is as to whether the present petition on behalf of the petitioner as landlord against the opposite party as tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is maintainable or not. Admittedly Smt. Vidya was realising the rent of the disputed premises and she was treated to be the landlady. It may be that there were other co-landlords but the rent was being realised by Smt. Vidya Devi. The alleged partition on 15.12.1982 and on the basis of the compromise dated 26.4.1983, the petitioners are alleged to have received the disputed accommodation in their share and claimed to be the owners and landlords. The petitioners have not brought on record the partition deed dated 15.12.1982 to indicate and establish their claim that the disputed house has fallen in their share and they have become the owners. The landlords after the aforesaid decree have not served any notice or any intimation to the tenant of their becoming the owners/landlords of the disputed premises by virtue of the partition deed and the compromise decree dated 26.4.1983. It is not expected for the tenant to know the details of either the partition between the co-landlords or any legal proceedings between them when he was not a party to these proceedings. It is also established from the record that the tenant has not paid any rent to the petitioners or to have accepted the petitioners as their landlords. In absence of these materials, the learned IV Additional District Judge has very correctly recorded the finding that the petitioners cannot be treated to be the landlords of the disputed premises. 9. The tenant at the outset in the written statement has set up this case and has very specifically that he had no knowledge of the partition of this disputed property having come in the share of the petitioner to claim the ownership. He had been paying the rent to Smt. Vidya Devi who has now stopped taking the rent and as such he has started depositing the rent under Section 30 in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi. He had been paying the rent to Smt. Vidya Devi who has now stopped taking the rent and as such he has started depositing the rent under Section 30 in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi. The petitioners in spite of this defence, could not establish by any material on record that they are the landlords and there was relationship of landlord and tenant. The observation of the Prescribed Authority that merely because Smt. Vidya Devi who was earlier receiving the rent has not claimed to be the landlady would not be sufficient to establish the petitioner claims as landlords of the disputed house and the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. In the release application the petitioners have not even impleaded the other co-landlords or even Smt. Vidya Devi as a respondent. 10. In my opinion, the finding of the learned IV Additional District Judge in this regard does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 11. Although in this view of matter, the case was required to be considered on other aspects of the matter, however, even otherwise on merit the learned Judge has rightly held that the need of the landlords is not bonafide and genuine as they failed to establish the partition and on that basis only ?rd share in House No. 9. The petitioners had been comfortably living in House No. 9 and even if there was some requirement of latrine and bathroom it could be arranged by way of alterations. The finding with regard to the comparative hardship also, in my opinion, is based on cogent reasons and material on record. The tenant having a family of 11 members with meagre income which is derived by plying a two seater vehicle would be put to greater hardship in case he has to vacate the disputed premises. 12. For the aforesaid reasons the petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.