JUDGMENT : - A.B. Srivastava, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner tenant has sought quashing of an order dated 21-7-1994 of the Addl. District Judge Kanpur Nagar rejecting the prayer of the respondent No. 3 for impleadment and order dated 26-11-1994 dismissing the petitioner's appeal under Section 22 of Act 13 of 1972. 2. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator respondent No. 2 have been heard. Release of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner was sought on the ground of personal need of the respondent No. 2 claiming to be co-owner and co-landlord, to start his own business. The same was contested but was allowed by the prescribed authority. The petitioner preferred appeal. 3. DURING the appeal the respondent No. 3 which is the brother of the respondent No. 2 filed an application for impleadment claiming to be the sole owner landlord and also stating that title suit is pending between parties. The same was rejected. 4. THE learned Addl. District Judge also dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that the respondent No. 3 being the sole landlord was a necessary party and the release application without impleading him was not maintainable. This contention is based on the plea that the premises in question was exclusively purchased by the respondent No. 3 and he alone was paid the rent. The said sale-deed has however, not been filed. The rent receipts filed (Annexure-4) do not bear the signature of the respondent No. 3. Out of the assessment records, the name of petitioners' father is recorded in the years 1953 to 1938 as tenant of premises No. 124 recorded as property of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and their father and mother. 5. UNDER law it is permissible for a co-landlord to make a release application against the tenant. This has been laid down by a full bench decision of this Court in Gopal Das v. The Ist Addl. District Judge, Varanasi, 1987 AWC (1) 538. There is no reason to restrict the scope of the principles enunciated in para 12 of the judgment of full bench, to cases where there is already a partition allotting the premises under tenancy to one of the co-sharers, or there is sole ownership. District Judge, Varanasi, 1987 AWC (1) 538. There is no reason to restrict the scope of the principles enunciated in para 12 of the judgment of full bench, to cases where there is already a partition allotting the premises under tenancy to one of the co-sharers, or there is sole ownership. There is thus no substance in the plea that because of existence of a lis, due to pendency of the Civil Suit between the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the release application was not maintainable at the instance of the respondent No. 2 on the ground of his personal need. 6. AS to the question of bona fide need of the respondent No. 2, there is concurrent finding of the prescribed authority as well as learned Additional District Judge and the respondent does require the shop in question for his personal occupation. On going through the impugned judgment of the appellate court as well as the judgment of the prescribed authority, it is found that they have duly considered all the relevant evidence and circumstances in coming to their conclusion. There is no reason to differ with them nor is there any illegality or infirmity in the conclusion. On the question of comparative hardship also a finding of fact has been recorded by the prescribed authority and has been duly affirmed by the learned appellate authority. In view of the principles laid down in AIR 1978 SC 29 , it is not open to re- assess the evidence in these proceedings to come to a different conclusion. The petitioner for the aforesaid reasons has not made out any case for interference. 7. THE writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.