JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of Misc. Case No. 5 of 1999. The release application was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/ Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad, through order dated 18.1.2001. Against the said judgment and order, landlord respondent filed Rent Appeal No.1 of 2001. A.D.J., Court No. 2, Moradabad allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 8.7.2002, hence this writ petition by the tenant. 3. Property in dispute is a shop, frontage of which is 11 feet and depth is 22 feet. Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the tenant petitioner, during argument, categorically stated that tenant petitioner was ready to retain half portion of the shop and surrender possession of rest half portion of the shop in dispute to the landlord. 4. The shop in dispute belonged to the family of the landlord respondent. Family members got their properties partitioned and said partition was recognised in O.S. No. 556 of 1998 also. Trial Court wrongly held that by virtue of the said partition, applicant landlord respondent became owner but not landlord. Tenancy started in the year 1985 and rent note was also executed in between the tenant petitioner and father of the landlord. 5. The Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 998 , Sk. Sattar Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate has held that tenant cannot question partition among landlords unless it is shown to have been designed to create ground of eviction under Rent Control Act. Tenant only asserted that partition decree was not registered. 6. In any case, even if partition is ignored, respondent is co-owner and release application may be filed by a co-owner also vide Gopal Das v. A.D.J., 1987 (1) ARC 281 (FB). Moreover, the Supreme Court in AIR 2004 SC 1321 , India Umbrella Manufacturing Co., M/s. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla; and AIR 2006 SC 1471 , “Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, has held that even one of the landlords can file eviction proceedings against tenant and he need not show the consent of the other landlords. No other brother, sister or father of the respondent ever raised any objection against the partition. No other brother, sister or father of the respondent ever raised any objection against the partition. 7. In the agreement/rent note dated 24.7.1985, it was mentioned that tenancy would start from 30.9.1985 and until 30.9.2005, Ram Ji father of landlord respondent would receive the rent. Under the said agreement, it was mentioned that the tenancy was being created for 20 years with effect from 30.9.1985 and after 20 years landlord would be entitled to get possession of half of the shop in dispute. Copy of the rent note dated 24.7.1985 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said rent note, rent was fixed at Rs.1500/- per month. It was mentioned that landlord was carrying on his business from the said shop, however his business was not giving good returns, hence he wanted to let out the said shop. It was further stated that tenancy would start from 30.9.1985. Under Clause-5, it was provided that in case after 20 years from the date of execution of the rent note, landlord would desire to start his own business, then tenant would deliver possession of half portion of the shop with the condition that rent of the remaining portion would be Rs.1000/- per month. The rent note is not registered. 8. Under proviso to Section 21 (4) of the Act, it is provided that no order for eviction on the ground of bona fide need shall be made in the case of tenancy created for a fixed term by a registered lease before the expiry of such term. As in the instant case, lease is not registered, hence the said proviso is not applicable. Accordingly, it is not necessary to decide that as to what would be the effect of expiry of period of 20 years during pendency of appeal even though release application was filed within 20 years. 9. Question of bona fide need has rightly been decided by the lower appellate Court and it has also not seriously been challenged by the tenant. It has been found that neither landlord respondent is having any business nor he is employed anywhere. 10. As far as question of part release is concerned, Section 21(1) of the Act itself says that prescribed authority may order the eviction of a tenant from the building in tenancy or any specified part thereof. The frontage of the shop is 11 feet. 10. As far as question of part release is concerned, Section 21(1) of the Act itself says that prescribed authority may order the eviction of a tenant from the building in tenancy or any specified part thereof. The frontage of the shop is 11 feet. In normal case, order of part release of such shop cannot be passed as in case of division of shop into two parts, two portions in the form of galleries of 5 feet and 4.5 inches width and 22 feet depth will come into existence, which will not be suitable for business purpose. However, in the instant case in the agreement of 1985, itself it was visualized and contemplated that half shop could be released. Even though the agreement not being registered is not admissible for the main purpose, however for co-lateral purposes, it is admissible. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court is modified and half portion of the shop is released in favour of the landlord. Remaining half portion shall remain in tenancy occupation of the shop. The rent of the said portion shall be paid @ Rs.1000/- per month. Let a wall of three inch width be erected exactly in between the shop within three months. Tenant is at liberty to retain any of the two portions of the shop. If any difficulty arises, then landlord may file an application before the Prescribed Authority and Prescribed Authority shall immediately appoint an advocate Commissioner to supervise the work of raising wall. Fees of the Commissioner shall be born by both the parties in equal share. If within three months, the parties are not able to divide the shop by erection of wall in between the shop amicably, then both the parties shall appear before the Prescribed Authority concerned along with certified copy of this judgment on 7.1.2009 and on that date Prescribed Authority shall appoint some advocate Commissioner to do the needful as directed above. 12. Writ petition is accordingly allowed as above. ————