JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This judgment and order shall dispose of the present writ petition and connected Writ-A Nos. 19265 of 2021 and 19267 of 2021, all of which involve identical questions of fact and law. Writ-A No. 19263 of 2021 is being treated as the leading case.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jeevanjee Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 and Mr. V.K. Nagaich, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The brief facts of the leading case are that the Late Kamla Prasad, father of the tenant-petitioner, Chandan Lal was allotted Shop No. 6 on the basis of an auction dated 29.08.1990, for a period of 99 years. The shop is owned by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Gopi Ganj, District Bhadohi and the Nagar Palika, represented by the Executive Officer, is the landlord of the said shop. The rent of Rs. 250/-per month was settled, besides a premium of Rs. 30,000/-. The case of the petitioner is that he has been regularly paying rent to the Nagar Palika Parishad, but without determining his tenancy, the Nagar Palika Parishad have issued a recovery certificate dated 05.11.2019 for a sum of Rs. 93,508/-claimed to be outstanding against the petitioner on account of unpaid rent.

4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.11.2019 before this Court vide Writ-C No. 37670 of 2019 on the ground that the petitioner's lease has not been determined, yet a recovery citation has been issued. Substantially, the recovery citation was objected to on the ground that the petitioner is not in default of payment of monthly rent and further, that he has already deposited all outstanding rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was contented, therefore, on behalf of the petitioner, in the writ petition last mentioned, that the petitioner cannot be said to have committed default in payment of rent. The writ petition was contested by the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply to the Nagar Palika Parishad owned buildings, in view of the provisions of Section 2(1)(a) of the said Act. Therefore, deposit of rent in Court under Section 30 of the Act under reference would not enure to the petitioner's benefit. A further objection raised on behalf of the Nagar Palika Parishad was that the petitioner was not at all a tenant and the lease, pleaded by the petitioner, was denied.

5. The writ petition under reference came up for determination before a Division Bench of this Court and their Lordships were of opinion, considering the stand of the Nagar Palika Parishad, denying the petitioner’s tenancy, that disputed questions of fact were involved, which cannot be decided in a writ petition. So far as the fact that the Nagar Palika Parishad being exempt from the operation of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 under Section 2(1)(a) thereof, no deposit under Section 30 could be made is concerned, this Court held that the Act would not apply to a Nagar Palika Parishad. It was also remarked by the Division Bench that the question, whether a sum of money due to the Nagar Palika as rent can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, is also a disputed question of fact, that cannot be gone into.

6. In view of the findings, the Division Bench directed the District Magistrate, Bhadohi to decide the matter in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the Nagar Palika, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits half of the sum of money due under the impugned recovery certificate, within fifteen days of the date of that order with the respondent-Nagar Palika Parishad. It was further directed that the petitioner would deposit the rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month, in future. It was provided that subject to compliance with these directions, status quo with regard to possession, nature and character of the property in question would be maintained. The District Magistrate, Bhadohi w