JUDGMENT Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Feeling aggrieved with the orders dated 11.10.1994 passed by the Civil Judge/Prescribed Authority and 29.1.2010 passed in Appeal by the Additional District Judge, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The facts giving rise in respect of the present petition are that petitioner happens to be the tenant of the shop in question for about 20 years and the landlords have initiated the eviction proceedings by means of moving an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act no.13 of 1972 on the ground of personal need. 4. The application was moved jointly by all the three landlords who inherited the property in question from their father late Sri Ram Bharose. Written statement was filed by the petitioner and thereafter parties led their evidence and the Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence of both the parties found the bonafide need of respondents-landlord was genuine and, therefore, released the shop in question in favour of the landlord vide judgement and order dated 11.10.1994. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order an appeal was filed and the said appeal has been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 29.1.2010, hence this writ petition. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a compromise at the appellate stage with one of the co-landlord namely Shiv Kumar in respect of the present shop and, therefore, the said compromise was liable to be taken into consideration but the appellate authority has not considered the same while deciding the appeal. 6. The next point which has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that partition Suit filed by the landlord was without jurisdiction and that the pecuniary jurisdiction did not lay with the court when partition suit was filed, therefore, the said judgement rendered in the partition suit is to be ignored. It has also been submitted that the share of Smt. Ram Janki could not have been surrendered in the partition proceedings and if any such surrender has been made that will amount to transfer of property in question which could not be done in the proceedings of partition suit. . 7. It has also been submitted that the share of Smt. Ram Janki could not have been surrendered in the partition proceedings and if any such surrender has been made that will amount to transfer of property in question which could not be done in the proceedings of partition suit. . 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that that question which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been taken into consideration by the appellate authority and a specific finding has been recorded in this regard. It was also submitted that the need of the land lord has been found to be bonafide and genuine and it has also been found by the courts below that the evidence led by the petitioner was not genuine and he was having his own shop and carrying on general merchant business (Kirana shop) in the vicinity Chandi Purwa and the sons of the landlord were having no shop for carrying any business in these circumstances the claim of the landlord to retain the shop was genuine and the shop in question was released in favour of the landlord. He has also submitted that after partition between the parties one of the shop was being used as passage for egress and ingress by the co-owners and one shop was possessed by Shiv Kumar, who is alleged to have entered the compromise with the petitioner and the other shop fell in the share of Ramasre and he is having no shop and neither any place for business and his sons are also unemployed and after partition has attained finality in Suit No. 247 of 1997 vide judgement and decree dated 24.1.2007, the things are very clear that the shop which fell in the exclusive share of Ramasre has rightly been released in favour of the landlord. 8. The question regarding jurisdiction and legality of the judgement and decree rendered in the partition suit can not be taken into consideration and it is for the parties who are aggrieved by the said judgement and decree to have challenged the said judgement and decree on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction. 8. The question regarding jurisdiction and legality of the judgement and decree rendered in the partition suit can not be taken into consideration and it is for the parties who are aggrieved by the said judgement and decree to have challenged the said judgement and decree on the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction. He has also submitted that there was a specific report of the Munsarim of the court that it was maintainable and if parties have any objection in regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction they are at liberty to challenge the same but the third party can not come to challenge the validity of the judgement and decree on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. Initially release application was moved by the three landlords jointly as there was no partition between the parties and all the landlords are supposed to join the application for release on the ground of personal need at the time of filing of the application so no defect can be attributed to the proceedings at the time of decision of the Suit. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and one of the co-landlord namely Shiv Kumar but the said compromise also stood diluted during the pendency of the proceedings i.e. when the Suit for partition was filed between the parties and the said partition Suit was decreed by means of judgement and decree dated 24.1.2007 passed in Suit no. 247 of 1997. After the decree of the said Suit, technical objection raised by the petitioner also came to an end and the shop in question which has fallen in the share of Ramasre has rightly been considered to be genuine and pressing need of the landlord to settle his sons. 11. The question regarding pecuniary jurisdiction can not be taken into consideration in these proceedings as the judgement and decree has been passed by the Court below having jurisdiction and if a decree has been passed by the competent court having jurisdiction then the same is binding unless and until it is challenged by any of the parties. It is not the case of the petitioner that the suit was entertained in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) which was beyond territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Junior Division). It is not the case of the petitioner that the suit was entertained in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) which was beyond territorial jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner could have been entertained when it is found that the judgement and decree is without jurisdiction. 12. Here in the present case, the suit was entertained by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Suit was decreed and the parties took objection whatever they wanted. Once the decree is passed, the same is binding inter se between the parties and the landlords have not come to challenge the partition decree. 13. In these circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to pecuniary jurisdiction can not be accepted and it is hereby rejected. 14. So far the question of bonafide need of the landlord is concerned, the same has been found to be genuine by the courts below. It has also been found that the petitioner is running general merchant shop (Kirana shop) at Chandi Ka Purwa and has got house and has shops as well in the said house and the sons of the land lord are unemployed and they are having no proper place to do business. 15. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the courts below do not call for any interference and the genuine need of the landlord appears to be correct as the three sons of the landlord are unemployed. It is to be noted that no such argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and neither bonafide need of the landlord has been challenged before this Court. 16. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that provisions of section 21(1) (a) of the Act will also come in the way of maintaining the release application as there has been acquisition of the shop after partition decree dated 24.1.2007. The said argument can not be appreciated on the ground that right has accrued on the basis of partition decree and not by way of sale deed. Therefore the provisions of section 21(1)(a) of the Act will not be attracted, hence the argument is rejected. 17. For the reasons stated above, the petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed