JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. Landlord-respondent no. 3 Shree Chand filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Lal Ji, respondent no. 4 and Gopal Ji, the petitioner.
2. Both Gopal Ji and Lal Ji are real brothers. In the release application it was stated that Lal Ji was the tenant and he had sub let the shop in dispute to Gopal Ji. Shop in dispute was allotted to Lal Ji in the year 1957. Prescribed Authority /IIIrd Addditional Civil Judge, Varanasi, before whom release application was registered as P.A. Application No. 19 of 1983 allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 14.5.1985. Against the said judgment and order both Lal Ji and Gopal Ji filed rent appeal no. 169 of 1985. Appeal was dismissed by VIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi on 4.10.1986,hence this writ petition.
3. This writ petition was dismissed on 19.7.2005 as learned Counsel who had filed the writ petition stated that he had no instructions. Thereafter petitioner was dispossessed on 11.8.2005.Thereafter restoration application was filed through another counsel on 17.8.2005. On 20.10.2005 I heard learned Counsel for both the parties (Sri M.D. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondsnt-landlord) on the restoration application as well as merit of the writ petition.
4. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 19.7.2005 dismissing the writ petition for want 01 instructions is set aside.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued the following; points:
(i) Petitioner was joint tenant with respondent no. 4.
(ii) In Sixties there was an agreement in between the landlord and main tenant Lal Ji, respondent no. 4 permitting him to sub let the shop in dispute.
(iii) A partition took place in between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and tenancy f the shop in dispute came in the share of the petitioner.
(iv) Application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not maintainable as the landlord die not admit the petitioner to be tenant and he asserted that petitioner was sub-tenant.
(v) Tenancy of petitioner stood in regularized under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
6. There is no question of any joint .tenancy as building was let out to Lalji respondent no. 4.
7. Even if it is accepted that sub tenancy was valid, petitioner was liable to eviction along with the chief tenant i.e. Respondent no. 4. Land lord had already impleaded the petitioner as opposite party in the release application.
8. As petitioner was not joint tenant, hence there was no question of partition of tenancy between him and respondent no. 4.
9. The point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability of release application against alleged subtenant does not arise for consideration as release application was not filed only against the alleged sub tenant. Main tenant i.e. Respondent no. 4 was also party in the release application. In case release application had been filed only against the petitioner, then the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner would have been perfectly valid.
10. Section 14 of the Act does not regularize sub-tenancy. Scope of Section 14 is quite limited. If a landlord has let out a building to a tenant without allotment order before July 1976, then by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, the said tenancy stands regularised.
11. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that dispossession of the petitioner in pursuance of impugned orders was illegal as under Section 23 of the Act only tenant can be evicted. Petitioner was party in release proceedings, hence he was bound to be evicted under the order of eviction passed therein. Even if the petitioner had not been a party in the release proceedings, he would have been bound by the eviction order, as he was found to be subtenant and sub-tenant is bound by the decree of eviction passed against the tenant.
12. In respect of bonafide need found in favour of the landlord by both the courts below, nothing has been argued. In respect of comparative hardship it has been argued that petitioner has got no other shop in the city. Admittedly the main tenant i.e. Respondent no. 4 was not using the shop in dispute. As far as the hardship is concerned, firstly, hardship of sub-tenant is not to be considered and secondly petitioner did not show that he made any effort to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This is sufficient to decide the question of hardship even against the main tenant (vide B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada A.I.R. 2003 (S.C.) 2713.
13. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.