JUDGMENT : 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. 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 apparent that this is a dispute regarding a shop between two private parties, i.e., the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 and this dispute between two private parties, in my view, cannot be allowed to be settled in this writ jurisdiction, which is an extraordinary in its nature. From the material on record, it is apparent that this is a dispute regarding a shop between two private parties, i.e., the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 and this dispute between two private parties, in my view, cannot be allowed to be settled in this writ jurisdiction, which is an extraordinary in its nature. The writ petition, in my opinion, is not maintainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the Petitioner. There is no dispute that Rafiq Ahmad was landlord of the shop and was receiving rent from the Petitioner of the shop and the landlord need not be the owner. The tenant is paying rent to him as a landlord. This is also not in dispute that Rafiq Ahmad executed a sale-deed in favour of the Respondent No. 2, Hans Raj with respect to the said shop and that he also wrote a letter to the Petitioner asking him to pay rent of the said shop to the Respondent No. 2 in future. Whether the sale-deed allegedly executed by Rafiq Ahmad was valid or not involves complicated and intricate questions of fact and law and in the application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for releasing the property, which is of summary nature, such a complicated question of ownership cannot be decided. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, IInd no ground to interfere in this writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The Interim order passed by this Court on 16.3.1984 is hereby vacated. The District Judge concerned shall decide the revision petition expeditiously in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.