Judgment : Present petition is filed, assailing the judgment and order dated 30.04.2013, passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 126 of 2011, whereby appeal filed by the tenant/respondent herein against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2011, passed by the Prescribed Authority was allowed and application moved by the landlords/petitioners herein for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement by the landlord for the personal need of son of the applicant/petitioner No.2 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that both the petitioners herein moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of UP Act, against the tenant/respondent herein for the eviction of the tenant. It is specifically stated in the application that both the applicants/petitioners herein are joint owners/landlords of the shop in question. Shri Tushar Rawat S/o applicant No.2 Vinod Singh Rawat as well as nephew of applicant No.1 Bhagwan Singh Rawat is 12th standard pass and is an unemployed youth, therefore, shop in question is bonafidely required, so that Tushar Rawat may start his business of readymade garments in the shop in question. 3. Tenant in his written statement before the Prescribed Authority, in paragraph No.1 has stated that the rent of the shop in question is being paid to the applicant No.1 only, therefore, for all practical purposes, applicant No.1 is the landlord and it is not in the knowledge of the tenant, as to whether, applicant No.2 is also co-owner/co-landlord of the property in question. It was further stated that alleged need to establish Tushar Rawat in the shop in question is imaginary and in fact no such need exists and real intention of the landlords is to get the disputed shop vacated on one ground or another and, thereafter, to let it out on the higher rent to third party. 4. Learned Prescribed Authority, having recorded finding of the fact that shop in question is bonafidely required by the landlords to establish unemployed son of the applicant No. 2 was pleased to allow application moved under 21 (1) (a) of the Act, directing the tenant to handover the peaceful vacant actual possession of the shop in question to the landlord within 30 days from the date of the judgment. 5. 5. Feeling aggrieved, tenant preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 126 of 2011 before the District Judge, Dehradun under Section 22 of the Act, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority. It is held by the Appellate Authority that first of all, application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is signed only by applicant No.1 and is not signed by the applicant No.2, therefore, application is not legally maintainable on behalf of both the applicants; Tusar Rawat is a nephew of applicant No.1, hence does not fall within the definition of family member of applicant No.1, therefore, applicant No.1 cannot seek eviction for the alleged need of his nehpew. Secondly, no affidavit of Tushar Rawat or his father applicant No.2 is placed on record to demonstrate that his son Tushar Rawat is unemployed and needs shop in question to carry out his business of readymade garments in the shop in question. 6. I have heard Mr. Dharmendra Bharthwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/landlords and Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Senion Advocate, assisted by Mr. Naveen Tiwari, Advocate, appearing for the respondent/tenant and have carefully perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that Tushar Rawat is the son of the applicant/petitioner No.2 Shri Vinod Singh Rawat. It is also not in dispute that Tushar Rawat is unemployed youth. It is also not in dispute that both the applicants/petitioners have jointly purchased the property in question vide sale deed dated 15.07.1976. 8. In my considered opinion, property was purchased by both the applicants jointly and partition between them has not been proved by the tenant, therefore, property shall be presumed to be jointly held by both the applicants. Entries in the Assessment register of the Municipal Board are only for the purpose of collecting the taxes. In my considered opinion mutation does not confer title, it is the source of the title which is to be seen for the purpose of ownership. Entries in the Assessment register of the Municipal Board are only for the purpose of collecting the taxes. In my considered opinion mutation does not confer title, it is the source of the title which is to be seen for the purpose of ownership. Moreover, since, in para No.1 of the application it is specifically pleaded that both the applicants are joint/co-owners/co-landlords of the shop in question and in reply to para 1 of the application tenant has stated that he has no personal knowledge that both the applicants are co-landlords, therefore, applying the settled principle of law that no knowledge does not amount to specific denial as required under Rule 5 of Order 8 C.P.C., I find that both the applicants are co-landlords of the property in question. 9. In my further opinion to settle the unemployed son of the co-landlord in the tenanted property after eviction of the tenant is ordinarily considered as bonafide need of the landlord. It is not open for the tenant to say that unemployed son of the landlord should not settle himself in his life and should remain dependant on his parents or family income. 10. Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, reads as under: “Application for release of buildings under occupation of tenant [Section 21 (1)]. – (1) Every application for release under Section 21 (1) shall specify the ground or grounds on which the tenant is sought to be evicted. (2) The application or its reply shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It there are more than one landlords, the application shall be signed by all the co-landlords. (3) Every application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation.” 11. As per sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Act, application seeking release of the buildings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, shall be signed by all the co-landlords in the manner prescribed under Rule 14-15 of Order 6 of C.P.C. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. As per sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Act, application seeking release of the buildings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, shall be signed by all the co-landlords in the manner prescribed under Rule 14-15 of Order 6 of C.P.C. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, reported in (2006) 1 S.C.C. 75 in paragraph No. 16 has held as under :- “An analogous provision is to be found in Order 6 Rule 14 CPC which requires that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any. Here again, it has always been recognized that if a plaint is not signed by the plaintiff or his duly authorized agent due to any bona fide error, the defect can be permitted to be rectified either by the trial court at any time before judgment, or even by the appellate court by permitting appropriate amendment, when such defect comes to its notice during hearing.” 13. As per the dictum of the Apex Court, if pleading is not signed by all the parties or duly authorized agent due to bonafide error, defect can be permitted to be rectified either by the trial court at any time before judgment, or even by the appellate court. 14. In my considered opinion, non compliance of Rule 14-15 of Order 6 C.P.C. is a curable defect and parties should be given a fair opportunity to cure such defect within such reasonable time as Court deems fit. 15. It is not in dispute that both the applicants/petitioners have purchased the property jointly vide sale deed dated 15.07.1976. None of the applicants/petitioners is saying that application has not been filed on behalf of either of them or has been filed without knowledge or consent of either of them. It is important to point out that both the applicants/petitioners herein have signed Vakalatnama jointly before the Trial Court as well as before this Court which is sufficient to indicate that application was moved by both the applicants/petitioners jointly. Therefore, it seems that applicant/petitioner No.2 omitted to sign the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, under the bonafide mistake. Therefore, fair opportunity should be given to applicant No.2 to cure the defect by putting signature on the application. 16. Therefore, it seems that applicant/petitioner No.2 omitted to sign the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, under the bonafide mistake. Therefore, fair opportunity should be given to applicant No.2 to cure the defect by putting signature on the application. 16. In the present case, learned Appellate Court did not grant any opportunity to applicant no.2 to cure such defect and straightaway rejected the application by allowing the appeal on the ground that it has not been signed by both the landlords. Finding of the appellate court that application should be deemed to have been filed on behalf of applicant No.1 only and applicant No.1 cannot seek eviction for the bonafide need of nephew since nephew does not fall within the definition of family member, in view of discussion made herein before is liable to be set aside. 17. In view of the above, impugned judgment does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside. 18. The appeal stand remanded and restored on the file of the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority is directed to give opportunity to applicant No.2 to sign the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Thereafter, Appellate Court shall decide the appeal at its own merit in accordance with law, preferably within 90 days. 19. Parties shall remain present before the Appellate Authority/District Judge for further orders on 2nd December, 2014. 20. No order as to costs.