The court emphasized the importance of examining the question of title in proceedings under the Act and the need to establish a bona fide dispute before proceeding to decide the relationship of landlord and tenant.

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.-

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The respondent No.1, Smt. Snehlata filed an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) of V.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against respondent No.2 Sri Surendra Singh, the alleged tenant 011 16.3.2004 which was registered as P.A. case No.9 of 2004 inter alia with the allegation that she had purchased the disputed property through a registered sale-deed dated 19.11.1999 from its erstwhile owner Tara Chand where the respondent No.2 was in unauthorised occupation and when he was sought to be evicted he preferred O.S. No. 285 of 2001, Surendra Singh v. Snehlata inter alia alleging that he was a regular tenant and could not be evicted except in accordance to law. Though the petitioner earlier denied the status of the respondent No.2 as a tenant, but later accepted him as such and since the said Surendra Singh was not paying the rent etc. an eviction suit was filed, which is pending. It was further alleged that in her' family apart from her husband who retired from Indian Air Force, she had two sons and one daughter. Both the sons are married while one has a daughter and the space available to them in their parental house was not sufficient for them and thus claimed release. Even after service of summons, the respondent No.2 did not file any written statement but moved an application dated 1.7.2004 stating that he had already vacated the premises. However, it was objected to by the .landlord and after considering the evidence on record, the application was allowed vide order dated 28.5.2005. After the order had become final, the landlady instituted an execution case for execution of the release order but before tl1e order could be executed, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 22 of the Act before the District Judge which was numbered as Rent Appeal No.1 of 2006 impleading the landlady and the respondent No.2 inter alia alleging that he was the owner and landlord of the disputed premises on the strength of a sale-deed dated 29.6.2004 and in pursuance thereof, he was put into possession by the erstwhile owner Tara Chand and therefore the order of release is vitiated. The Appellate Court after examining both the sale-deeds and the assessment and mutation orders arid also considering the case disclosed by the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, dismissed the appeal vide order and judgment dated 29.7.2006. The petitioner thereafter preferred the connected Writ Petition No. 46614 of 2006 challenging the release and appellate order but after contest the stay application was rejected vide order dated 28.8.2006. When the proceedings before the Executing Court proceeded further, the petitioner preferred his objection under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. which has been dismissed by order dated 23.9.2006 and on the same day the Executing Court issued writ of possession. Both these orders are under challenge in the leading petition No. 59022 of 2006.

3. When the petitioner set up a case of his own sale-deed dated 29.6.2004, the respondent No. 1 lodged an FIR under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 423 and 122B,I.P.C. on 23.8.2004 which was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No. 6905 of 2004 which has already been disposed off on 13.92004.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was a serious title dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 and therefore the Executing Court cannot proceed further to execute the release order as the petitioner was in possession of the disputed property in his own right as owner.

5. Apart from the fact that this argument was also raised in the connected Writ Petition No. 46614 of 2006; the stay application was rejected by this Court, the argument of the petitioner is against his own admission made in Writ Petition No; 6905 of 2004 and the Executing Court has taken full note of the, conflicting stand taken by the petitioner No doubt in proceedings under the Act, title cann