A Prescribed Authority appointed for the purpose of deciding an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as well as an appellate court to which an appeal is filed against such a decision, are not in a position to make a thorough and full inquiry of a disputed question of title.

K. C. Agarwal, J.

1. THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Bareilly dated 1-4-77 allowing an appeal filed under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by Shrimati Una J. Massey, respondent 2. Shrimati Una J. Massey, respondent 2 filed an application under Section 21 of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 for release of House No. 171/2 Civil Lines, Bareilly on the ground that she was the owner and landlord of the said house. She alleged that she was in service out of Bareilly which had been terminated with effect from 28-9-1974, as she wanted to live in this house, hence she filed the application for the release. She also alleged that as the petitioner had been transferred to Moradabad and lived there he was not in need of the disputed house.

2. THE petitioner contested the application and denied that he was a tenant and was in occupation of the house in that capacity. He denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioner. He claimed that the house in dispute previously belonged to one H. M. Angelo and that he had been paying rent to him. In 1968 H. M. Angelo wanted to sell the house. Therefore an agreement was executed between Angelo and the petitioner on February 14, 1968 whereby the former agreed to sell the house to the latter for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. Out of Rs. 14,000/- Rs. 7,000/- was paid immediately and the balance Rs. 7,000/- was to be paid in instalments in six years. It was further agreed that the petitioner would continue to remain in possession of the house and no rent would be payable by him from the date he completed the payment of Rs. 10.000/-. The petitioner claimed that the balance amount of Rs. 7,000/- was also paid by him to Angelo. The case of the petitioner further was that he could not get a sale-deed executed from H. M. Angelo because of the restrictions imposed by the Uttar Pradesh Government on transfer of urban land.

Respondent 2 disputed the claim of ownership of the petitioner. She asserted that the aforesaid property along with some other properties belonged to her father late Shri S. J. Angelo who died leaving behind respondent 2 and her brothers and sisters as his heirs and legal representatives. By a registered partnership deed dated 11th March, 1971 entered into between the heirs of late S. J. Angelo i.e. respondent 2 and her brothers and sisters the building in dispute fell in the share of respondent 2. As the respondent 2 was employed with British Consults General Lahore, she had entrusted the management of the property to one H. B. Luke and thereafter on his death since 1968 H. N. Angelo was collecting rent on her behalf.

3. THE denial of relationship of landlord and tenant made by the petitioner raised a serious controversy about title. The petitioner did not only refute the claim of respondent No. 2 being the owner of the property but also set up title in himself ; both the parties filed a number of documents in support of their respective cases. The Prescribed Authority held that respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the property and that she had no right to get the house vacated from the petitioner. In appeal the District Judge took a different view.

4. THE sole question that arose for consideration before the court below and still arises for decision before me is whether a question of title of ownership of a property could be gone into in the proceedings under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. There is nothing in the Act which deprives a court, dealing with an application under Section 21 to decide a question of title when raised. However, it appears to me that a court dealing with an application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being a court of limited jurisdiction did not have the jurisdiction or authority to decide a complicated and intricate question of title if the same arises for decision before him. If a question of title is decided incidentally for the purposes of decidin