The tenant is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord who let him in as a tenant.

( 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.

( 4 ) IT is more than clear that petitioner is adamant to delay the proceedings.

( 5 ) IT is important to note that learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that petitioner had removed his entire assets from the shop in dispute and was doing business from another shop and was keeping the shop in dispute just locked in order to get back the pagrhi which he gave to the landlord. In the impugned order no such argument is noted. Moreover there was no occasion for the Court below to consider such argument in an impleadment application. The petitioner has also filed an application for referring the matter to the High Court under section 114, C. P. C. The said application was also rightly rejected by impugned order. The Court below very rightly imposed cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. In future if any adjournment is sought by the tenant in any form, heavier cost must be imposed.

( 6 ) WRIT petition is dismissed. Office is directed to send a copy of this order within ten days to the Court below/jscc/adj Court No. XI, Aligarh.

( 7 ) AFTER dictation of the above judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed. I do not consider it appropriate to accept this request. As the tenant is behaving in most unreasonable manner hence it is necessary to issue direction to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit and imposition of very heavy cost upon the tenant if he seeks any adjournment in any form. Petition Dismissed.

.