D S VICTOR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Bareilly dated 1-4-77 allowing an appeal filed under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by Shrimati Una J. Massey, respondent 2. Shrimati Una J. Massey, respondent 2 filed an application under Section 21 of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 for release of House No. 171/2 Civil Lines, Bareilly on the ground that she was the owner and landlord of the said house. She alleged that she was in service out of Bareilly which had been terminated with effect from 28-9-1974, as she wanted to live in this house, hence she filed the application for the release. She also alleged that as the petitioner had been transferred to Moradabad and lived there he was not in need of the disputed house.

(2.) THE petitioner contested the application and denied that he was a tenant and was in occupation of the house in that capacity. He denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioner. He claimed that the house in dispute previously belonged to one H. M. Angelo and that he had been paying rent to him. In 1968 H. M. Angelo wanted to sell the house. THErefore an agreement was executed between Angelo and the petitioner on February 14, 1968 whereby the former agreed to sell the house to the latter for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. Out of Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 7,000/- was paid immediately and the balance Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid in instalments in six years. It was further agreed that the petitioner would continue to remain in possession of the house and no rent would be payable by him from the date he completed the payment of Rs. 10.000/-. THE petitioner claimed that the balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- was also paid by him to Angelo. THE case of the petitioner further was that he could not get a sale-deed executed from H. M. Angelo because of the restrictions imposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government on transfer of urban land.

(3.) THE sole question that arose for consideration before the court below and still arises for decision before me is whether a question of title of ownership of a property could be gone into in the proceedings under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. THEre is nothing in the Act which deprives a court, dealing with an application under Section 21 to decide a question of title when raised. However, it appears to me that a court dealing with an application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being a court of limited jurisdiction did not have the jurisdiction or authority to decide a complicated and intricate question of title if the same arises for decision before him. If a question of title is decided incidentally for the purposes of deciding the chief point involved, there can be no objection to such a decision but where as here, the substantial object of the respondent 2 was to get a decision of her title through the application filed under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the same has to be objected to and cannot be permitted. Admittedly the respondent 2 never realised any rent from the petitioner. She could not file any document which could establish a direct relationship of landlord and tenant between herself and the petitioner. Apart from the direct evidence, no other evidence could be brought on the record showing the admission of the petitioner of her title. To the contrary the evidence brought showed that the petitioner had been paying rent to Angelo. THE petitioner also filed an agreement executed by Angelo to sell the property to him. THE genuineness of the partition deed filed by respondent 2 under which she claimed title had also been disputed by the petitioner. In the background of all these facts, it was not a case where a court dealing with an application under Section 21 could decide the question of title. A Prescribed Authority appointed for the purpose of deciding an application under Section 21 as well as an appellate court to which an appeal is filed against such a decision are not in a position to make a thorough and full inquiry of the disputed question of title.