- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. It appears that respondent No. 4 Nanak Chand Trust, Sarai Lal Dass, Meerut has got a big house containing about 50 shops also which are in tenancy occupation of different persons. Four such shops are in possession of the four original petitioners bearing Nos. 17, 24, 25 and 49 respectively. Respondent No. 3 Nagar Mahapalika, Meerut initiated eviction proceedings against all the tenants including the petitioners under U. P. Public Premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act. The cases against petitioners on the file of Prescribed authority/a. D. M. (Administration), Meerut were registered as Case Nos. 19 of 1979, 27 of 1979, 31 of 1979 and 43 of 1979. The said cases alongwith three other cases i. e. case No. 28 of 1979 in respect of shop No. 5, case No. 32 of 1979 in respect of shop No. 14 and case No. 39 of 1979 in respect of shop No. 13 were jointly heard and decided on 4-12-1979. Fate of other cases has not been disclosed in the writ petition except the case pertaining to shop No. 23. The decision in respect of said shop has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition which was given by Prescribed authority/a. D. M. (City), Meerut on 27-5-1983. In the said order it was mentioned that Prescribed authority himself inspected the premises and found that opposite parties (including the trust) were having a very big house which appeared to be more than 50 years old. In the said order it was also observed that on the spot there was no encroachment. Prescribed authority observed that at the time of inspection, Pairokar and Advocate of Nagar Maha Palika could not connect the property shown in the map with the existing property consequently, proceedings were dropped. In the said order it is mentioned that proceedings were started on 22-12-1978. However in the order the year of the case is not mentioned. Copies of some other orders have also been filed alongwith rejoinder affidavit. One is in respect of case No. 38 of 1993, Nagar Nigam v. Pushpa Devi in respect of shop No. 6. In the said case proceedings were initiated on 4-12-1978. The other order is in respect of case No. 12 of 1993, Nagar Nigam v. Barkho Devi and the third is in respect of case No. 2, the copies of the judgments are not much legible. However in all the three cases proceedings were dropped on 29-3-1996 by Prescribed authority/city Magistrate 1st, Meerut.
(2.) IN the cases giving rise to the instant writ petition it was held that the opposite parties in the said cases including the petitioners were unauthorized occupants. Orders of eviction were passed on 4-12- 1979. Against the said orders separate appeals were filed. It appears that the appeals were filed by the trust. Appeals were dismissed on 24-11-1983 by VIth Additional District Judge, Meerut hence this writ petition. The number of appeals were Misc. Appeal No. 538 of 1979, 541 of 1979, 543 of 1979 and 544 of 1979. IN the said appeals copy of order of Prescribed authority dated 27-5-1983 in favour of the occupant of shop No. 23 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) was not filed. Before the Courts below a serious dispute of title was raised by the petitioners, respondent-trust and occupants of other shops. The trust as well as occupants clearly stated that trust was the owner of the land in dispute and building in dispute was constructed several decades before and evidence to that effect was also filed. In the municipal records the property in dispute was entered as sadak and sehan (road and courtyard ). It was contended on behalf of the petitioners and the trust that until 1952 the trust was under the management of Treasurer of Charitable Endowment. The Courts below did not record a finding regarding period of occupation. The trust and the petitioners had also contended that in the year 1946 special manager of the Court of wards had prepared a map of the immovable property of the trust and property was shown in the said map. The trust and the petitioners apart from various affidavits have filed copy of gazette dated 11-12-1902, some original map and photocopy of the said map. Proceedings for eviction under U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act are summary in nature and in such proceedings title cannot be decided. If a question of title is involved then it can better be decided by civil Court inspite of order of eviction under aforesaid act. In this regard reference may be made to the following authorities: M/s. Bhartiya Hotel and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. , AIR 1968 Patna 476 Union of India v. Shyam Lal, 1968 A. L. J. 494 M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v. Estate Officer and Ors. , AIR 1991 NOC 3 (Pat.) Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. And others v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1986 SC 872 Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Shiva Prasad Tripathi and Ors. , 1996 (1) A. R. C. 514 (SC)
(3.) IN my opinion a clear cut bona fide dispute of title was/is involved in between the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners and/or respondent-trust to file regular suit before civil Court on the basis of title.;