SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.9.2009 and order dated 6.9.1994 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexures 1 and 2 to writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the possession of the successor in interest of the father of late Ram Avtar and uncle Sri S.R.Bansal.
(2.) THE facts arising of writ petition are that petitioners are tenant, are aggrieved by orders passed by respondents. The predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court against one Ram Avtar, predecessor in interest of the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that plaintiff was the owner and landlord of the shop No.2 Jubileeganj, Rajban Bazaar, Meerut Cantt, and the defendant Ram Avtar was his tenant. The defendant-tenant in spite of notice neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent, as such, suit was filed. In reply to the notice, defendant Ram Avtar has replied the notice and also filed his written statement. In the written statement, it was stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and he has never paid any rent. It was pleaded that disputed shop was owned by his father Chunni Lal and uncle Sri S.R.Bansal and the same was under tenancy of Jiya Lal, who had paid rent to Mr. Bansal, owner of the shop. Disputed shop No.2 was never transferred to Sri Ram Das nor there was any recital given therein to that effect in the sale deed dated 21.6.1879. The plaintiff brought on record the sale deed dated 21.6.1879 and will dated 30.1.1916 in order to prove his ownership on the disputed shop. By sale deed dated 16.3.1879, Ramadhar sold his half share of said shop No.2 to Narain Das for a sale consideration of Rs.500/- and subsequently it was sold to Ram Das but the lower court relied upon a judgement of prescribed authority in P.A. No.13 of 1982 in Section 21 proceedings between the same parties and judgement in Appeal No.399 of 1981 dated 6.2.1986 arising out of appeal against the order of the prescribed authority. Lower Court has noted the fact that Hon'ble Court in a writ petition has stayed the dispossession of the tenant in which judgement of the prescribed authority and the order of the Appellate authority has been challenged. Lower Court has deliberately misread the findings in the said judgement of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. It has been submitted that Revisional Court has completely misread the order of the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.573 of 1997 filed against the revision which was dismissed vide order dated 6.9.1994. Both the courts have ignored the material evidence on record in the case regarding finding of ownership of the landlord and tenant between the parties. The finding to this effect recorded by Courts below that the matter relating to the landlord and tenant has already been decided by the High Court is wholly incorrect and based on no evidence. Learned counsel for petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the order passed by this Court and it has submitted that from perusal of the order, it does not appear that the High Court has decided the question of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for respondents submits that in miscellaneous Appeal No.399 of 1982 between Ram Autar and Sri Kishan Chand, a finding has been recorded that "I am satisfied that plea of title of third persons Chunnilal and Sriram Bansal by the opposite party is frivolous and designed over delaying or embrassing the proceedings. To my mind the applicant's title does not involve any intricate or complicated questions of ownership. I am therefore, satisfied that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties." The High Court in Writ Petition No.3163 of 1986 (Ram Autar Vs. Kishan Chand and others) has clearly held that if there is any dispute regarding landlord and tenant between the parties, it can only be decided in a regular suit. The question of ownership and landlordship can only incidentally be seen by the Rent Control Authorities and final decision thereupon shall be left to be taken by the regular civil court. The writ petition was dismissed, therefore, both the courts below had no occasion except to record a finding that matter has already been decided by the High Court and admittedly he has not deposited the rent, therefore, he is liable for ejectment. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record.;