Judgment (1.) HEARD Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, appearing for the respondents. (2.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery proceedings on the basis of demand notice dated August 7, 1981, and show-cause notice of the same date contained in annexures-13 and 14, respectively, to this petition. It is contended that in pursuance of the impugned show-cause notice and demand notice, an amount of Rs. 13,224, is being recovered from the petitioner. (3.) THE petitioner's case, in brief, is that he is a tenant of a portion of house No. 58/52, Baihrana Road, Kanpur. This building is owned by Rameshwar Prasad Bagla and Satya Narain Bagla, who were income-tax assessees. An amount of Rs. 30,67,989.64 was found due against them towards income-tax dues, and, therefore, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the assessees, Rameshwar Prasad Bagla and Satya Narain Bagla. (4.) HOWEVER, it also transpired that the petitioner is a tenant of the building belonging to the assessees, therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner that the amount due towards rent is to be paid to the income-tax authorities. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the notice. Thereafter, legal recourse for recovering the income-tax dues was adopted and in pursuance of that, the demand notice and show-cause notice, which are under challenge in this petition, have been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Janardan Sahai, submits that the amount in question is a disputed one inasmuch as the Department alleges that the petitioner is also required to deposit the enhanced rent whereas no proceedings under the provisions of the Rent Control Act have taken place enhancing the rent and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the same. It is also submitted that whatever amount of rent was agreed between the petitioner and the owner, the same has already been deposited by the petitioner by issuing two cheques in favour of the Department. (5.) BE that as it may, since disputed questions of fact have been raised in this petition which cannot be gone into and adjudicated upon in the writ jurisdiction, in the opinion of this court, it is proper for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned and raise all possible pleas which are available to him under the law. (5.) BE that as it may, since disputed questions of fact have been raised in this petition which cannot be gone into and adjudicated upon in the writ jurisdiction, in the opinion of this court, it is proper for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned and raise all possible pleas which are available to him under the law. (6.) AT this stage, learned counsel pointed out that, vide annexure-10 to the petition, a representation was made lo the Tax Recovery Officer (respondent No. 1) but no decision having been taken thereon has persuaded the petitioner to file the instant petition. As observed above, since disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction, it is directed that if till date the petitioner's representation contained in annexure-10 has not been decided, the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. (7.) WITH the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of. The stay order dated August 21, 1981, is hereby vacated.