DAYA SHANKAR UPADHYAYA Vs. NARESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been heard and disposed of in open court for reasons to be recorded later. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows.

(2.) HEARD Sri S. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

(3.) SRI S. P. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not a tenant, he was in fact landlord of the premises in question, which was his ancestral house. The premises in dispute was not owned by SRI Naresh Chandra, etc. who were claiming themselves to be the Zamindars of Qasba Jais, Raebareilly. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on two documents, one-List of House Tax Assessees maintained by the Municipal Board Jais, Raebareilly in respect of House No. 234 and the other, a receipt relating to payment of House Tax by the petitioner Daya Shankar Upadhyaya. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as D. W. 2 and one more witness Siyaram as D. W. 2. According to him, both the courts below have erred in holding that the house in dispute was not owned by the petitioner. He has further submitted that in fact there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. No issue was framed regarding the title or ownership of the premises in question. In the written statement and other pleadings, the petitioner had denied the title of landlord. Since intricate question of title was involved in this case, the court below ought to have returned the plaint or decided this question first before proceeding further. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in Pratap Singh v. IXth A.D.J., Fatehpur and others, 2000 (2) ARC 41 : 2000 (3) AWC 1995 and Mahendra Pal Singh and others v. District Judge, Jhansi and another, 2004 (1) ARC 697 : 2004 (5) AWC 4090, wherein it has been held that the disputed question of title should have been dealt with by the appropriate civil court. SRI Pathak has further submitted that since the petitioner himself was the landlord of the premises, no question had arisen to make payment of any rent to the alleged landlord.