- (1.) -THE contention of the learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner is that the shop in dispute was constructed over a Nala. Learned Counsel for the petitioner first argued that tenant had vacated the shop thereafter he argued that the key of the shop was still with the petitioner. The Court completely fails to understand as to how shop in dispute can be said to be vacated if the key is with the tenant. In the suit (SCC Suit No. 1 of 2007) landlord respondent has claimed relief for possession as well as for recovery of arrears of rent. In the suit an extremely frivolous application was filed seeking addition of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh on the allegation that shop in dispute was constructed over Nala which was property of Nagar Nigam. The said application has rightly been rejected on 21. 5. 2007, which order is challenged through this writ petition.
(2.) ARGUMENT of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he also brought the fact to the notice of the Nagar Nigam but Nagar Nigam refused to take any action. If Nagar Nigam is refusing to take any action, absolutely no useful purpose will be served by impleading Nagar-Nigam. Moreover by virtue of section 116 of the Evidence Act tenant is completely estopped from questioning title of the landlord which let him in as tenant.
(3.) IF it is assumed for the sake of argument that shop was constructed over Nagar Nigam land then petitioner is equally liable for illegally occupying Nagar Nigam land. Petitioner may be liable even for criminal prosecution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner was ready to face even criminal prosecution however, Nagar Nigam should be impleaded.;