JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhatia, J. 1. Since both the petitions are related, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts leading to filing of Writ – A No.3013 of 2025 are as under: i. By means of Writ – A No.3013 of 2025, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 16.01.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, as well as the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the prescribed authority whereby the release application filed by respondent no.3 was allowed. ii. The facts, in brief, are that the property under the tenancy of the petitioner was owned by one Dhanno Devi. Dhanno Devi had two sons namely Prem Prakash Pal and Satya Prakash Pal. Wife of Prem Prakash Pal is respondent no.3 namely Kamla Devi. Shri Satya Prakash Pal and his wife had died during the lifetime of Dhanno Devi and were survived by son namely Sandeep Kumar Pal. The premises was given on rent to the petitioner by Smt. Dhanno Devi during her lifetime who died on 13.03.1996. The petitioner used to pay rent to Smt. Dhanno Devi and after her death, the rent was paid initially to Prem Prakash Pal, and as claimed by the petitioner jointly to Prem Prakash Pal and Sandeep Kumar Pal. Subsequently, respondent no.3 claimed that the entire property in question was gifted to her by virtue of a gift deed dated 10.02.1988 in her favour and based upon the said gift deed, she claimed to be the owner of the premises and preferred a P.A. Case No.45 of 2009 before the prescribed authority seeking release of the tenancy premises in the control of the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RENT ACT ’) claiming that the premises in question was required for her son who was a practicing lawyer, for setting up his offices. The said P.A. case was filed on 22.10.2009 – a copy of the plaint is on record as Annexure – 5. The petitioner being the tenant defended the said case by filing a written statement, which is on record as Annexure – 6. In the said written statement, it was admitted that the petitioner was the tenant of the shop since the year 1978 and had taken the premises on rent from Smt. Dhanno Devi. The petitioner being the tenant defended the said case by filing a written statement, which is on record as Annexure – 6. In the said written statement, it was admitted that the petitioner was the tenant of the shop since the year 1978 and had taken the premises on rent from Smt. Dhanno Devi. In Para – 1 of the written statement, it was admitted that after her death, the rent was collected by her elder son Prem Prakash Pal in cash and thereafter, he refused to accept the rent, as such, a Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2006 was filed under Section 30 (1) of the RENT ACT and the rent was permitted to be deposited in Court, which was being done. The petitioner also denied the execution of the gift deed in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi. It was pleaded that the relationship in between Prem Prakash Pal and Kamla Devi was not cordial and during her lifetime, Prem Prakash Pal had contracted a second marriage. It was also stated that Smt. Kamla Devi did not reside in the house in question and used to reside elsewhere and never took care of her mother-in-law Dhanno Devi and thus, there was no question of any gift deed being executed by Smt. Dhanno Devi in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi. The bonafide need as alleged in the release application was also defended by stating that her son can be established elsewhere. iii.It appears that during the pendency of the case, the written statement was amended by stating that Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal, the grandson of Dhanno Devi, was also the joint owner of the property after the death of Dhanno Devi and the rent was accepted jointly by Shri Prem Prakash Pal and Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal. It was also stated that Shri Prem Prakash Pal used to collect the rent for himself as well as Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal with an understanding that they will distribute the rent amount themselves. It was specifically pleaded that the rent was recoverable by both Shri Prem Prakash Pal as well as Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal to the extent of half of the rent. It was also stated that in the miscellaneous case, Smt. Kamla Devi was also made a party being Party No.2. It was specifically pleaded that the rent was recoverable by both Shri Prem Prakash Pal as well as Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal to the extent of half of the rent. It was also stated that in the miscellaneous case, Smt. Kamla Devi was also made a party being Party No.2. It was also stated that Smt. Kamla Devi had no locus to file the release application as after the death of Dhanno Devi, Shri Prem Prakash Pal and Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal became the joint owners by virtue of succession and Smt. Kamla Devi was not the landlady. iv. It has been alleged in the present case that in the municipality records, the name of Smt. Dhanno Devi continues. In Para – 10 of the writ petition, it has been admitted that the certified copy of the gift deed which has been filed in the proceedings is in the nature of a secondary evidence, which has not been proved. It has also been alleged that during the continuation of proceedings, Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal wanted to be impleaded and had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, however, he was not permitted to be impleaded. It has also been stated that subsequently on 31.07.2013, a sale deed was executed in respect of a share owned by Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal in the property in favour of the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure – 7. It was recorded that an application was moved directing Smt. Kamla Devi to file the original gift deed which came to be rejected. It has also been alleged in Para – 13 that after execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, an application was moved for dismissal of the P.A. case on which orders were passed that the same shall be considered at the time of final hearing. It has also been pleaded that an application was moved for summoning the records of the Registrar which was disallowed. Ultimately, the P.A. Case No.45 of 2009, came to be decided on 05.02.2019 in favour of the landlady and the premises was directed to be released in favour of the landlady against the petitioner. v. Aggrieved against the said judgment dated 05.02.2019, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No.7 of 2019 which has been dismissed on 16.01.2025. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. v. Aggrieved against the said judgment dated 05.02.2019, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No.7 of 2019 which has been dismissed on 16.01.2025. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. In respect of this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that for establishing the gift, it was essential that there should be acceptance of gift which has not been established in the present case and thus, Smt. Kamla Devi never became the owner of the property by virtue of the gift deed executed in her favour. He further argues that the appellate Court as well as the prescribed authority erred in rejecting the application for summoning the records from the office of the Sub-Registrar for establishing the factum of gift. He further argues that, in fact, in respect of the execution of a sale deed by Smt. Sandeep Kumar Pal in favour of the petitioner, an FIR was lodged by the son of Smt. Kamla Devi under Section 406 and 420 of IPC in which a final report was filed and this fact was not considered by the appellate Court in its right perspective. 4. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kesava Kurup Raghava Kurup Vs. Thomas Idicula and Anr. ; AIR 1969 KERALA 21 as well as judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nirbhai Kumar Vs. Maya Devi & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2239. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, denies the arguments raised by the petitioner by arguing that respondent no.3 became the owner of the property by virtue of a gift deed executed in her favour. He further argues that it is wrong to argue that no evidence was adduced and in fact, a certified copy of the gift deed was filed and finds mention in the appellate order. He further argues that the sale deed that was got executed by the petitioner through Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal was a nullity in the eyes of law. He further argues that the proceedings were initiated under the RENT ACT , which proceedings are summary in nature and the prescribed authority is to see whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists in between the parties or not. He further argues that the proceedings were initiated under the RENT ACT , which proceedings are summary in nature and the prescribed authority is to see whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists in between the parties or not. The issue with regard to validity of the gift deed or its non-execution has never been agitated in any Court of law. He argues that the appellate Court as well as the prescribed authority have considered the evidence in respect of bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlady and thus, to that extent, no good ground is made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution as it is not a Court of appeal. He, thus, argues that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and recorded above, perusal of the appellate order in which the order of the prescribed authority stands merged, reveals that the first question as framed by the appellate Court for determination was as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists in between the parties or not. The appellate Court considered the entire evidence as adduced by both the parties and the case-laws that were cited by both the parties and recorded a categorical finding that respondent no.3 was the owner of the property by virtue of the gift deed executed in her favour, and as the petitioner was admittedly a tenant by whom the rent was paid initially to Smt. Dhanno Devi and thereafter to Shri Prem Prakash Pal and thereafter in the Court under Section 30 of the RENT ACT wherein Smt. Kamla Devi was arrayed as a landlord, the petitioner was the tenant of the premises and thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. 7. The other issues with regard to the bonafide need and the comparative hardship were also decided in favour of the landlady. 8. It is fairly well settled that this Court in exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not a Court of appeal and the judicial review is confined to the decision making process and to see whether the order impugned is perverse or contrary to any settled proposition of law. 9. 8. It is fairly well settled that this Court in exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not a Court of appeal and the judicial review is confined to the decision making process and to see whether the order impugned is perverse or contrary to any settled proposition of law. 9. In the present case, the appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact based upon appreciation of evidence including the evidence cited by the petitioner and has recorded categorical findings to that effect. In fact, in the written submission filed by the petitioner, which is on record, the petitioner himself has admitted to be the tenant of the premises, thus, the only contention of the petitioner that he had purchased a part of the property from the alleged joint owner Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal by virtue of a sale deed needs to be repelled, as, even if the said sale deed is treated to be a valid sale deed, the same would only create the co-ownership over the property and not in respect to particular part of the property. Admittedly, the property has not been partitioned by metes and bounds even as per the contention of the petitioner, thus, the character of the petitioner over the tenancy on the shop in question would not change as the petitioner by virtue of the sale deed has not purchased the specified portion of the property which was under his tenancy. 10. These facts have been duly appreciated after considering the evidence on record, thus, in the facts, I do not see any reason for holding that the appellate order suffers from any irregular exercise of power warranting interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The judgment of the Kerala High Court cited by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the ingredients of a valid gift deed cannot be seen in the proceedings under the RENT ACT which are summary in nature and are confined to establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. There being no challenge to the gift deed, the case-law as cited by the petitioner has no relevance to the present case. 12. There being no challenge to the gift deed, the case-law as cited by the petitioner has no relevance to the present case. 12. The other judgment cited with regard to the limitation of filing a petition by the landlord in terms of the proviso to Section 21 has no applicability to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the written statement, there were no pleadings to that effect, no arguments were raised before the appellate Court in that context, even in the present writ petition, there are no pleadings to that effect. Thus, there being no pleading in the writ petition on the foundation of proviso to Section 21, there being no pleading or argument before the appellate Court and there being no pleadings even in the present writ petition, the said argument cannot be permitted. 13. Thus, on all the grounds, present petition being Writ – A No.3013 of 2025 deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed 14. WRIT - A No. - 14927 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 31.01.2019 passed in Rent Appeal No.10 of 2017 whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant against order dated 28.03.2017 came to be allowed. 15. The facts with regard to the ownership of the property as claimed by the petitioner herein have already been narrated hereinabove. 16. To further reiterate, the petitioner claims to be the owner by virtue of a gift deed executed in her favour and on the said foundation, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the RENT ACT on 26.10.2005 seeking eviction of Opposite Party No.2 alleging the need of the premises for establishing her son’s chambers who was a practicing lawyer, as well as for herself. The said application was numbered as P.A. No.35 of 2005. Subsequently, the said P.A. case was decided to proceed ex-parte on 15.12.2009 and after about substantial time, an application was moved for recalling the order for proceeding ex-parte, which was recalled and thereafter, the tenant filed his written statement and admitted that he was the tenant of the shop since the year 1968 and Smt. Dhanno Devi was the landlady. 17. 17. In the said case also, respondent no.2 initially tendered the rent to the husband of the petitioner and thereafter started depositing the rent under Section 30 of the RENT ACT impleading Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal and the petitioner as joint landlords. It was also pleaded that the relationship of the petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi with her husband Shri Prem Prakash Pal was not cordial and on account of the matrimonial dispute, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were initiated in the year 1991. Subsequently, after exchange of pleadings and hearings, the prescribed authority allowed the release application by means of the judgment dated 28.03.2017 holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed, and the finding with regard to bonafide need for establishing the son was also held to be justified. On the comparative hardship also, a finding was recorded in favour of the petitioner. While doing so, the prescribed authority also took into consideration that the son of Opposite Party No.2 was the owner of commercial vehicle and was earning good monthly income. 18. Aggrieved against the release order dated 28.03.2017, Opposite Party No.2 preferred Rent Appeal No.10 of 2017. The appellate Court by means of the impugned order allowed the appeal and held that in pursuance to the alleged gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner, no proceedings were initiated since 1987. The appellate Court also disbelieved the secondary evidence produced in respect of gift deed. The appellate Court was also swayed by the fact that the sale deed was executed in favour of Opposite Party No.2 by Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal. The appellate Court also took into consideration the rent receipts produced by Opposite Party No.2 to the effect that the rent was paid jointly to Shri Prem Prakash Pal and Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal, thus, according to the appellate Court, it could not be established that the petitioner was the sole owner of the property. The appellate Court was also swayed by the fact that the relationship in between Shri Prem Prakash Pal and his wife, the petitioner, was not very cordial and matrimonial disputes existed in between them and thus, upset the finding recorded by the prescribed authority to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant could not be established and the prescribed authority had erred in recording that there existed a relationship in landlord and tenant. 19. 19. Assailing the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the proceedings under the RENT ACT are summary in nature and cannot partake the character of a suit wherein the validity of a document can be looked into. He further argues that the matrimonial discord in between Shri Prem Prakash Pal and the petitioner could not be a ground taken by the appellate Court for disbelieving the ownership of the petitioner by virtue of a gift deed as pleaded by her, as the question of validity of gift deed was not under challenge in the rent proceedings. He argues that admittedly the petitioner was admitted as a co-owner; even if the contention of Opposite Party No.2 was treated to be gospel truth, there was no denial of the fact that the petitioner was the co-owner. He draws my attention to the written statement filed by Opposite Party No.2 specifically to the extent that the entire defence of the respondent was that the petitioner was the joint owner alongwith Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal, and argues that even if the said contention was accepted, there was no denial of the fact that the petitioner was the joint owner, and under the RENT ACT , the petitioner being the joint owner could have preferred the release application. 20. It is further argued, on the basis of the application filed under Section 30 of the RENT ACT which is on record as Annexure – 10, that even as per the said application filed by the tenant, Smt. Kamla Devi was the joint owner of the property. 21. In the light of the said, he argues that the appellate Court has transgressed the jurisdiction of the appellate authority vested under Section 22 of the RENT ACT and has erred in allowing the appeal, more so, when no finding was recorded in respect of the bonafide need and the comparative hardship by the prescribed authority. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, strongly opposes the writ petition by arguing that the appellate Court has rightly held that the relationship of Shri Prem Prakash Pal with the petitioner was not cordial. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, strongly opposes the writ petition by arguing that the appellate Court has rightly held that the relationship of Shri Prem Prakash Pal with the petitioner was not cordial. He further argues that the appellate Court has rightly held that the respondent had become the co-owner by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal during the pendency of the proceedings and thus, the order of the appellate Court does not require any interference. 23. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is essential to notice that the RENT ACT was enacted to decide the disputes in between the landlord and the tenant. To file an application for release of the property under the RENT ACT , the only need that is required to be established is that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties. The said Act does not confer the power on the prescribed authority to deal with the questions of validity of any instrument. 24. In the present case, even as per the admission of the respondent in the written statement filed as well as the application filed under Section 30 of the RENT ACT which are on record, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was the co-owner of the property as per the stand taken by the respondent. There is no pleading in the written statement or in the memo of appeal to the effect that there was a partition in between the alleged co-owners in metes and bounds. Merely because the respondent claimed that he had purchased a part of the property from joint owner Shri Sandeep Kumar Pal without there being any specific share falling in share of Shri Sandeep Kumar pal, the essential character of the tenant would not get evaporated and the relationship, even if all the contentions are accepted, would continue as that of a tenant and a co-owner in between the petitioner and the respondent. 25. The appellate Court in the present case has clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in rejecting the contention that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant, which is perverse and contrary to the pleadings. 26. 25. The appellate Court in the present case has clearly transgressed its jurisdiction in rejecting the contention that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant, which is perverse and contrary to the pleadings. 26. The marital discord in between Shri Prem Prakash Pal and Smt. Kamla Devi which weighed heavily in the mind of the appellate Court can once again not be considered to be a valid criteria for recording a finding with regard to landlord and tenant relationship in between the parties. 27. Thus, the reasonings as recorded by the appellate Court in the impugned order are perverse, contrary to the pleading and beyond the scope of powers conferred upon the appellate authority by virtue of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and thus, cannot be sustained as the categorical findings recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship have not been unsettled by the appellate Court and no material has been placed before this Court to allege and argue that the bonafide need as pleased by the landlord in her application was not bonafide. The findings recorded in respect of bonafide need and comparative hardship by the prescribed authority are liable to be upheld. 28. Thus, the present petition being Writ – A No.14927 of 2019 deserves to be allowed, the order in appeal impugned in the present writ petition being order dated 31.01.2019 deserves to be set aside and that of the prescribed authority passed on 28.03.2017 in P.A. Case No.35 of 2005 deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 29. The execution shall proceed accordingly. 30. Both the petitions stand decided in above terms.