// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9654/2007 B.N. Mishra S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Versus The Estate Officer (Wakf) Rajasthan, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur and Another Date of Order ::: 01.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri A.K. Pareek, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed an application for dispossession of defendant- petitioner under Section 7 (1) & (2) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964. The petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer. During the pendency of that proceedings, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 11 Rules 12 & 14 read with Section 151 CPC for production of a copy of Wakf-Deed. The said application was dismissed by the respondent No.1 Estate Officer vide order dated 14th November, 2006. The present writ petition was preferred on 17th November, 2007 challenging the impugned orders dated 14th November, 2006 (Annexure-3) as // 2 // well as 21st August, 2007 (Annexure-5), but, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the prayer in respect of the order dated 21st August, 2007 (Annexure-5) and arguments were advanced only in respect of the order dated 14th November, 2006 (Annexure-3). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the disputed property has been entered in the register maintained under Section 26 of the Act but source of it has not been mentioned in it, therefore, it is necessary that a direction may be given to the plaintiff to produce the copy of Wakf-deed itself. The Estate Officer has considered the said submission of learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and has passed a detailed and speaking order. It has been observed in the order that so far as the entry of register maintained under Section 26 is concerned, the same has already been placed on the record. The petitioner admits that he is a tenant in the disputed property and the present suit is also in respect of tenancy itself. The defendant-petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the title in the present suit relating to tenancy. The Estate Officer, therefore, recorded a finding that in the facts // 3 // and circumstances of the case there is no need of production of Wakf-deed and consequently rejected the application filed by the petitioner. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the Estate Officer in the impugned order dated 14th November, 2006 and, after considering the same, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same. Apart from the above, it is also relevant to mention that during the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that he has already filed a separate suit for deleting the entry in respect of the disputed property from the register maintained under Section 26 of the Act. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//