Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the tenant for challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and orders dated 4.3.2011 passed by Addl. District Judge, SCC Court, District Badaun in SCC Revision No. 26 of 2009 and order dated 5.3.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) SCC Court, District Badaun in SCC Case No. 03 of 2005: Smt. Sunita Rastogi v. Surendra Kumar. The Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent not to give effect to the aforesaid orders dated 4.3.2011 and 5.3.2009 impugned in the writ petition. The impugned orders have been challenged on the grounds that there is a dispute of title involved and the case filed by the Respondent -landlord was barred under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Cases Act, hence the Civil Judge (Senior Division) SCC Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but both the Courts below have wrongly and illegally recorded finding that there is no bar in the facts and circumstances of the case under Section 23 of the Act. According to the Petitioner, it has not been established that the vendor is legal heirs of real owner of the disputed shop and as such the Respondent -landlord cannot claim title; that even sale -deed has not been proved by the Respondent -landlord who claims to have purchased the property in dispute from legal heirs of Hafeez Mohammad who was also legal heirs of late Anwar; that the Respondent has not produced herself as witness to prove the sale -deed, but the Court below has illegally passed the order in favour of the Respondent -landlord, which has been confirmed by the revisional Court.
(3.) PER contra, Sri Vishwa Pratap Singh, appearing for the Respondent, has submitted that the Prescribed Authority has recorded a categorical finding of fact that Hafeez Mohammad brother of Anwar Mohammad was real owner of the shop in dispute and that the property had been sold by registered sale -deed dated 27.8.2004 in favour of the Respondent. It is argued by Sri Vishwa Pratap Singh that the tenant has denied title of landlord though has admitted relationship of the tenant and as such the Court has rightly proceeded in the matter. It is also argued that in the written statement the Petitioner claims himself to be a tenant, but later on he claims to be landlord on the basis of unregistered WILL dated 27.9.1972 which had not been filed even in the written statement.;