Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri V.D.Ojha, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri V.K. Agrawal holding brief of Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

2. This revision has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 8.10.2015 passed by the Court of Small Causes (Court No. 5), Hathras in SCC Case No. 11 of 2006 (Madan Mohan Sharma v. Sudhir Agarwal).

3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent sent a notice dated 8.6.2005 followed by another notice dated 9.6.2005 to the defendant-revisionist due to non payment of rent and asked him to vacate the premises in question. Undisputedly, the defendant-revisionist is a tenant in the disputed property which is a Dharamshala. He has neither paid rent to any person after receipt of the aforesaid notice nor has deposited the rent in the Court. He raised the dispute with regard to title of the plaintiff-respondent and alleged that one Sri Radha Raman is the owner of the disputed property, who and the plaintiff-respondent are the grand sons of one Sri Net Ram, who owned the disputed property.

4. It appears that Paper No. 49-C was filed in evidence which is a registered Waqfnama dated 1.1.1945 executed by one Sri Net Ram, who had two sons namely, Sri Ram Narayan and Damodar Das. An agreement dated 20.11.1974 filed as Paper No. 52-C was also executed by Sri Netram for the management of Dharamshala in question appointing his son Sri Damodar Das as Mutwalli with the provision that mutwalliship shall continue in his generation in the male line.

5. It also appears that some dispute arose with regard to the title and management of the Dharamshala in question and as such a Suit No. 201 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the aforesaid Sri Radha Raman alongwith two other brothers. The said suit was decreed by the Court of Civil Judge, Hathras by judgement and decree dated 19.2.2010 and the plaintiff-respondent was declared to be the manager of the shops and Dharamshala in question.

6. In the impugned judgement, the Court below considered the evidences on record including the judgement and decree dated 19.2.2010 passed by the Court of Civil Judge in Original Suit No. 201 of 2005 and recorded a finding of fact that there is no dispute of title, since the plaintiff-respondent has been declared to be the manager of Dharamshala in question.

7. It is the admitted case of the defendant-revisionist that after the notice given to him by the plaintiff-respondent on 8.6.2005, he has neither paid rent to any person nor has deposited the same in the Court. It is not the case of the defendant-revisionist that any suit for recovery of rent and ejectment was filed by Sri Radha Raman or any rent was demanded by the aforesaid Sri Radha Raman from him.

8. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that against the judgement dated 19.2.2010 passed in Original Suit No. 201 of 2005, Madan Mohan Sharma v. Radhey Shyam and others, a First Appeal No. 201 of 2005, Radhey Shyam and others v. Madan Mohan Sharma, was filed in which an order dated 27.5.2010 was passed as under :

“Admit.

Issue notice.

In the meantime, status shall be maintained regarding nature and title.”

9. He, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 213 of 2010, the Court below could not have held the plaintiff-respondent to be the landlord of the disputed property. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgements of this Court in the case of Virendra Prasad Shukla v. Ram Swarup and others, 1983 ARC 179 (Paragraph 4) and in the case of Mahendra Pal Singh and others v. District Judge, Jhansi and another, 2004(1) ARC 697.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent supports the impugned judgements and submits that the operation of the judgement dated 19.2.2010 passed in Original Suit No. 201 of 2005 was not stayed by the