Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Agra in Revision No. 263 of 1997, Gulfam v. Shaukat Hussain and Revision No. 1 of 1998, Shaukat Hussain v. Gulfam, and the order dated 6.11.1997 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Agra whereby the suit filed for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed. Brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are as follows:
(2.) THE predecessor -in -interest of the respondents namely Shaukat Hussain, filed a Suit No. 248 of 1992 against the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment from the shop in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as encroaching upon the adjoining shop illegally by breaking the wall between the two shops. The petitioner filed its written statement denying and disputing the allegations made in the plaint. The petitioner further denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and claimed himself to be the owner of the shop on the basis of some agreement to sale alleged to have been executed by Shaukat Hussain in favour of the petitioner. The Trial Court after perusing the pleadings and evidence available on record decreed the suit for arrears of rent/damages but declined to pass decree for ejectment on the ground that the property in dispute was not identifiable. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner as well as the respondents -landlords filed separate revisions which were numbered as Revision No. 263 of 1997, Gulfam v. Shaukat Hussain and Revision No. 1 of 1998, Shaukat Hussain v. Gulfam respectively. The revisional Court by judgment and order dated 6.11.1997 dismissed the revision No. 263 of 1997 filed by the petitioner and allowed the Revision No. 1 of 1998 whereby the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner was decreed in toto. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the orders passed by the Court below are illegal and arbitrary, and are based on a complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter, and has not considered the evidence available on record in right perspective. He, further submitted that the Court below has erred in holding that the landlord and tenant relationship was existing between the parties. It was further submitted that the property in dispute is a waqf property and Saukat Hussain was not the landlord of the disputed property.;