Ownership By Purchase From One Co-Owner Doesn’t End Tenancy With Other: Allahabad High Court Upholds Eviction Over Partitioned Share

“Relationship of landlord and tenant stands established even after family partition”— Allahabad High Court at Lucknow dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Justice Pankaj Bhatia rejected the petitioner's challenge to orders of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate Rent Control Tribunal, which had allowed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
The High Court held that “merely because the tenant has purchased a portion of the property from one co-owner does not alter his status as a tenant vis-à-vis the other co-owner who holds an undivided and defined share under a family settlement.”

Tenant Turned Purchaser Can't Evade Eviction From Landlord’s Partitioned Share

“No evidence was led to suggest the family partition was invalid. The tenant continues in occupation of a share not purchased by him.”

The dispute revolved around a tenancy created in January 1972 by Respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner’s father, comprising a Kothri, Khaprail, tin shed and land situated in Bahraich district. Over time, the petitioner continued as tenant. However, during proceedings under the Rent Control Act, the landlord (Respondent No.3) sought release of the premises, asserting bonafide need for his sons and himself after retirement.
The petitioner challenged the release application primarily on the ground that he had purchased parts of the property from Respondent No.4 (the brother of the applicant-landlord) through registered sale deeds dated 2008, 2011 and 2012, thus becoming a co-owner. He also argued that since the tenancy was originally indivisible, the application under Section 21(1)(a) was not maintainable.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Authority and the appellate court which had concluded that there had been a family partition between Respondents No.3 and 4. As a result, the portion of property which Respondent No.3 sought to evict the petitioner from had fallen exclusively to his share.
The Court remarked: “Clearly, in respect of the portion of which Respondent No.3 had become the owner, the rent was payable to him. The argument that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established thus merits rejection.”

On the issue of co-ownership claimed by the petitioner, the Court clarified: “The petitioner had purchased definite portions of land from Respondent No.4 whose share was earmarked under the family settlement. There is no material suggesting that the petitioner ever became a co-owner of the portion owned by Respondent No.3.”

Notably, the Court observed that while the petitioner stopped paying rent altogether, he also failed to produce any proof of having contested the partition: “There is no averment in the petition that the finding of the partition being valid is either perverse or arbitrary.”

Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s reliance on judgments such as Kewal Singh v. Lajwanti and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano, finding them irrelevant due to the existence of a partition and separate ownership.

The Court also distinguished the issue of “splitting tenancy” by stating: “After the family settlement, the share of Respondent No.4 was purchased by the petitioner and the tenancy continued only in the portion that belonged to Respondent No.3. There is no question of splitting tenancy.”
Dismissing the petition, the Court held: “There being no averment in the writ petition regarding findings of fact being either arbitrary or perverse… no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
In line with the Supreme Court’s directive in Periyammal (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Rajamani & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642/2025), the Court directed that execution of the eviction order be concluded within six months.

Date of Decision: 17 April 2025