A dispute regarding the title of the property cannot be decided in a summary proceeding.

S.C. JAIN, J.

1. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that shop No. 38/45. Moti Bazar, Dehradun, was in the tenancy of Sudarshan Lal, Petitioner, since deceased and he was paying rent to one Rafiq Ahmad, who was landlord. That shop was declared as vacant and the same was released in favour of Hansraj, Respondent No. 2 herein, by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun by his order dated 14.12.1981 as it was found that the original tenant had vacated the same and gave its possession to one Sri Om Prakash as a sub-lettee. It is contended that Hansraj. Respondent No. 2, had purchased this property some time in the year 1979 from the owner and landlord, Rafiq Ahmad and after sale-deed Rafiq Ahmad sent notice to the Petitioner through registered post requiring him to make payment of the rent of the shop in dispute to Hans Raj, Respondent No. 2.

2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Dehradun declaring the shop as vacant and releasing it in favour of the Respondent No. 2, Sudarshan Lal, the original tenant, filed a revision petition before the District Judge, which is still pending there. During the proceedings of revision petition, he moved an application that waqf deed may be taken on record as additional evidence, but the learned District Judge rejected the said application by his order dated 29.6.1982. The learned District Judge while rejecting the application observed that the question of title cannot be determined in proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 inasmuch as these proceedings are summary in nature. An application for recalling and reconsideration of the order rejecting application was moved but the same was also rejected on 9.2.1984 holding that there was no reason to recall the order. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the learned District Judge refusing to allow the application to lead additional evidence and to call for the record of registered waqf deed.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Rafiq Ahmad was Mutwaili and was realising rent of the said shop and it was the waqf which was owner and landlord of that property. Rafiq Ahmad had no authority to sell that property to the Respondent No. 2, Hans Raj. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 has been denied. According to the learned Counsel, u/s 16(1)(b) of the Act accommodation can be released in favour of the landlord.

4. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the Petitioner was paying rent of the shop in question to Rafiq Ahmad. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and Rafiq Ahmad is not in dispute. Relying upon a decision of this Court in 'Smt. Kailashwati v. IV Addl. District Judge and Ors. reported in 1980 ARC 388 which is based on earlier decision reported in 1978 ARC 413, the learned Counsel submitted that in a release application, he cannot dispute landlord's title. According to him, if the dispute involves complicated and intricate questions, that cannot be decided in a summary proceeding. According to the learned Counsel, the order passed by the District Judge refusing the request of the Petitioner to lead additional evidence on this point of title of the property is in accordance with law and needs no interference in this writ jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel, the shop in dispute was sub-let by the Petitioner, who has since died, to one Om Prakash and on that account, it was held to be a deemed vacancy and as such, it was released in favour of Respondent No. 2, Hans Raj, who acquired right of landlord and owner from Rafiq Ahmad.

5. As far as the legal proposition is concerned, the writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be invoked to settle the dispute between two private parties. The infringement of fundamental right gives rise to writ Jurisdiction. From the material on record, it is a