JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Prem Chand Jain, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner/tenant. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief: A. To set aside the impugned judgment an order dated 25.11.2017 passed by Appellate Authority/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Agra in R.C.M.A. No. 56 of 2017, Sanjeev Bhargava v. Rakesh Singhal (Annexure-9 to this petition) and allow the application 25/C (Annexure-5 to this petition) 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that in house property No. 1/119/18, Kinari Bazar, Agra, Sri Shiv Nath Bhargava and Smt. Rama Bhargava were tenant of a shop by allotment order dated 31.5.1962. After their death the tenancy was inherited by the defendant-petitioner and he continued as tenant. The original owner of the aforesaid house property was one Smt. Asherfi Devi. After her death the ownership of the aforesaid house was succeeded by her sons including the son Sri Bhagwan Singhal. The aforesaid Smt. Asherfi Devi died in the year 1982. His son Bhagwan Singhal also died subsequently. According to the plaintiff-respondent/landlord, he became the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. The defendant-petitioner/tenant continued to admit the plaintiff-respondent as owner and landlord and consequently he continued to pay rent to him. On the ground of personal need of the disputed shop, the plaintiff-respondent/landlord filed a release application under Section 21(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, before the Judge Small Cause Court/Prescribed Authority, Agra, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 62 of 2009, Sri Rakesh Singhal v. Sanjeev Bhargava and Another. In paragraph 2 of the release application, the plaintiff-respondent/landldord clearly stated that he is the landlord of shop No. 1/119/18, Kinari Bazar, Agra, wherein Sri Shiv Nath Bhargava and Smt. Rama Bhargava were tenant on behalf of the applicant in the aforesaid shop and they are reported to be dead and Sri Sanjeev Bhargava (defendant-petitioner/tenant) has stepped into their shoes. In his written statement he admitted the aforesaid averments of paragraph 2 of the release application. In the written statement he has not disputed the ownership and land-lordship of the plaintiff-respondent with respect to the disputed shop rather he took the stand that he has not defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiff-respondent/landlord and has been paying rent enhanced from time to time. In the written statement he has not disputed the ownership and land-lordship of the plaintiff-respondent with respect to the disputed shop rather he took the stand that he has not defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiff-respondent/landlord and has been paying rent enhanced from time to time. He also took the stand that the plaintiff-respondent is not in bona fide need of the disputed shop. Before the Prescribed Authority, the defendant-petitioner/tenant has not raised any objection to the ownership and land-lordship of the disputed shop of the plaintiff-respondent rather he admitted that the plaintiff- respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. Considering the pleadings, evidences and submissions of the parties, the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Court No. 6, Agra, allowed the release application by order dated 13.2.2017. Aggrieved with the said order the defendant-petitioner filed a R.C.M.A. No. 56 of 2017 Sanjeev Bhargava v. Rakesh Singhal, which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 17, Agra. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal the defendant-petitioner filed an application on 10.10.2017, praying that the respondent- landlord be ordered to produce the alleged Will of Smt. Asherfi Devi and alleged family settlement, prior to proceeding with the appeal. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal the defendant-petitioner filed an application on 10.10.2017, praying that the respondent- landlord be ordered to produce the alleged Will of Smt. Asherfi Devi and alleged family settlement, prior to proceeding with the appeal. This application being paper No. 25-C has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.11.2017, passed by the Additional Session Court No. 17, Agra, concluding as under: ^^eSaus i{kdkjksa dks lquk rFkk muds }kjk nkf[ky dh x;h fyf[kr cgl dk Hkh voyksdu fd;kA okLro esa ÁR;FkhZ jkds'k fla?ky us voj U;k;ky; esa vihykFkhZ latho HkkxZo ls viuh nqdku la[;k&1@119@18 fLFkr fdukjh cktkj] vkxjk dks [kkyh djkus ds fy;s ihŒ,Œ okn 62@2009 nkf[ky fd;k Fkk] ftlesa ÁLrqr fd;s x;s tckcnkok esa foi{kh us bl ckr dks Lohdkj fd;k fd vkosnd jkds'k fla?ky lacaf/kr lEifr dk ekfyd gS vkSj og mUgsa fu;fer fdjk;k nsrs gS vkSj mudks nqdku dh vko';drk ugha gS D;ksafd muds ikl vkSj cgqr lh lEifr;ka gSA iwjs tokcnkok esa mUgksaus dgh Hkh ÁR;FkhZ jkds'k ds edkunkj ;k Hkou Lokeh u gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k gS vkSj voj U;k;ky; esa iwjk eqdnek dsoy blh ckr ij yM+k gS fd vkosnd latho HkkxZo dks okLro esa bl Á'uxr nqdku dks [kkyh djkus dh lnHkkoh vko';drk ugha gSA voj U;k;ky; ls ihŒ,Œ okn fM+Øh gksus ds ckn vc vihy esa og jkds'k fla?ky ds ekfydkuk gd dks pqukSrh ns jgk gS] tcfd vusd o"kksZ ls og mudks Á'uxr nqdku dk fdjk;k vnk djrk jgk gSA fdlh Hkh fdjk;snkj dks ;g vf/kdkj ugha gS fd og ftl O;fDr dks yxkrkj fdjk;k vnk djrk jgk gks, mldks Hkou Lokeh ekuus ls badkj dj nsA blds vykok dksbZ vU; O;fDr Hkh ,slk ugha gS] ftlus Á'uxr nqdku ij viuk dksbZ ekfydkuk gd n'kkZ;k gksA fdl ikfjokfjd le>kSrs esa] fdl O;fDr dks dksbZ lEifr dSls feyh] bldk fookn lg Lokehx.k ds e/; esa rks gks ldrk gS] ysfdu fdjk;snkj ml ij bl rjhds dk dksbZ Á'u ugha mBk ldrk gS vkSj ;g Á'u fo'ks"kdj mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa rks dHkh Hkh ugha mBk;k tk ldrk gS] tcfd fdjk;nkj us Hkh mldks Lokeh ekudj mls yEcs le; rd fdjk;k vnk fd;k gksA blds vykok fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fu;e gS fd jsUV dUVªksy ds okn esa edku ds LokfeRo dk Á'u r; ugha gks ldrk gSA blfy;s ,slk Árhr gksrk gS fd dsoy vihy ds fuLrkj.k esa foyEc djus ds fy;s vihykFkhZ@fdjk;snkj }kjk ekeys dks my>kus ds fy;s bl Ádkj dk Á'u mBk;k x;k gS] blfy;s ;g ÁkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k ÁkFkZuk i= 25x fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs cgl vihy fnuakd 06-12-2017 dks is'k gksA** 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 25.11.2017, the defendant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that the plaintiff-respondent is not the owner of the disputed shop and, therefore, the Appellate Court has committed a manifest error of law to reject the application 25-C. He submits that a release application can be maintained only by the actual owner of the house property for the purposes of his bona fide need. A person who is not the owner but is merely collecting rent as an agent can not maintain the release application. The plaintiff-respondent was merely collecting rent as an agent and, therefore, he is not the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Mam Chand and Others v. Pramodini Srivastava and Others, 2014 (2) ARC 144 and Rashmi Bhatiya and Another v. Geeta Sharma and Another, 2016 (5) ALJ 403. On the strength of these two judgments, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.11.2017 deserves to be set aside and the application 25-C deserves to be allowed. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner and perused the record of the petition as well as a photo stat copy of the order dated 13.2.2017 in P.A. Case No. 62 of 2009, Sri Rakesh Singhal v. Sanjeev Bhargava and Another passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 6, Agra, whereby the release application was allowed. The aforesaid copy of the order dated 13.2.2017 and a photo stat copy of the written statement have been produced before me and after perusal both the copies have been returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant . 7. Perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner before the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 62 of 2009 clearly shows that there is no dispute on facts that the Original owner of the disputed shop was Smt. Asherfi Devi, who died in the year 1982 and plaintiff-respondent is her grand son. The father and mother of the defendant-petitioner occupied the disputed shop as tenant by allotment order dated 31.5.1962. After their death the defendant-petitioner being their son inherited the tenancy. The father and mother of the defendant-petitioner occupied the disputed shop as tenant by allotment order dated 31.5.1962. After their death the defendant-petitioner being their son inherited the tenancy. It is also undisputed that the aforesaid tenants of the disputed shop have been paying rent to the plaintiff-respondent as owner and landlord of the disputed shop. The release application was filed on the grounds that the defendant-petitioner defaulted in payment of rent and that the plaintiff-respondent is in bona fide need of the disputed shop. A finding of fact has been recorded in the order dated 13.2.2017 in P.A. Case No. 62 of 2009, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 6 Agra, that the landlord and tenant relationship has been admitted by the parties. Neither in the written statement nor during the course of hearing of the aforesaid P.A. Case the defendant-petitioner has questioned the ownership and land-lordship of the plaintiff-respondent with respect to the disputed shop. For the first time in appeal the defendant-petitioner questioned the ownership of the disputed shop. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 17, Agra, passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2017, in which he noted the undisputed fact as well the question of ownership raised by the defendant-petitioner for the first time in appeal. The appellate court came to the conclusion that it is not open for a tenant paying rent to the owner and landlord from a long time to deny the ownership of his landlord. The appellate court also noted the fact that no other person has claimed ownership of the disputed shop. Thus there is neither any basis nor it is open for the defendant-petitioner to raise dispute of ownership of the disputed shop in appeal. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 25.11.2017. The judgment in the case of Mam Chand and Others (supra) and Rashmi Bhatiya (supra) are of no help to the defendant-petitioner on the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 25.11.2017. The judgment in the case of Mam Chand and Others (supra) and Rashmi Bhatiya (supra) are of no help to the defendant-petitioner on the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid two judgments, it has been held that an agent merely authorised to collect rent on behalf of the landlord becomes the landlord as contemplated under Section 3(f) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but such an agent can not file a release application for his own need or for his family member under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act inasmuch as he is not the owner of the premises in question. It was further held that the right to get the building demolished and reconstructed can not be allowed to be exercised at the instance of a person who has been authorised to collect some rent though he has no authority for the building in dispute as such. The facts of the present case shows that the plaintiff-respondent is undisputedly the grand son of the original owner/landlady of the disputed shop. The defendant-petitioner has been paying rent to the plaintiff-respondent from a very long period admitting him as owner and landlord. He has neither questioned the ownership nor the land-lordship of the plaintiff-respondent at any point of time including in his written statement as well during hearing of the aforesaid P.A. Case No. 62 of 2009. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid two judgments relied by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner are of no help to the defendant-petitioner on the facts of the present case. 9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- which shall be deposited by the defendant-petitioner with the Legal Cell Authority, High Court Allahabad, within four weeks. The appellate court is directed to decide R.C.M.A. No. 56 of 2017, Sanjeev Bhargava v. Rakesh Singhal in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferable within three months, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment.