JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Waqf Udma Biki alias Budhiya Biki respondent No. 5 is a registered Waqf consisting of building and Mosque Old No. 120/122 (New No. 122/65 and 66) situated at Mohalla Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg, Allahabad which is managed and controlled in accordance with the Waqf Act, 1993. In the said building of the aforesaid mosque there are many rented shops. The petitioner claims himself to be the tenant of shop No. 66/122 in the aforesaid building situated at Mohalla Johnstonganj, City, Allahabad. 3. It is stated that on 10.4.2000 the petitioner sent rent of the disputed shop total amounting to Rs. 3,400/- at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the respondent landlord by postal money order but he refused to accept the same. Then he sent a registered notice on 28.12.2002 to the landlord with a request to accept the rent offered by him. The landlord respondent No. 5 replied claiming rent of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 1,250/- per month. 4. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner sent rent of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month total amounting to Rs. 6000/- up to the month of January, 2003 to the landlord on 22.2.2003. 5. On 22.5.2003 the petitioner received a citation issued by the Tehsildar Chail, Allahabad. 6. Aggrieved by issuance of the aforesaid citation dated 22.5.2003 the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25269 of 2003 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 20.3.2006 with a direction that the petitioner may submit his objection before the Board within six weeks and the same may be decided by the Board within 3 months thereafter. 7. It is stated that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment dated 20.3.2006 the petitioner filed objection before respondent No. 4 which was rejected vide order dated 23.2.2008, hence the instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 23.2.2008 aforesaid passed by the member of U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Allahabad. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been continuously offering the payment of rent of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been continuously offering the payment of rent of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month right from the time it was increased but without rhyme and reason. It is thereafter that respondent No. 5 started harassing and coercing the petitioner with ulterior motive to extort some ransom and ‘Pagri’ for his undue personal gains and is avoiding to receive the rent of the premises in suit, tenanted to the petitioner; and that nothing has been said by respondent No. 5 in his reply dated 4.3.2003 so as to establish from when and in what circumstances the rent has been enhanced and the amount of rent for which period is due against the petitioner. It is stated that he has not received any reply to the notice in this regard given by him to the petitioner. 9. He also submits that the petitioner thereafter sent the total amount of rent of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month amounting to Rs. 6000/- up to January, 2003 through two postal money orders dated 22.2.2003 of Rs. 3000/- each because as per postal rules it was not permissible to send more than Rs. 5000/- through one postal money order; that the aforesaid postal money orders have been returned undelivered as respondent No. 5 evaded and avoided to accept it; and that to his utter surprise the petitioner was served with a citation dated 22.5.2003 on 24.5.2003 issued by the Tehsildar Chail, Allahabad requiring him to deposit Rs. 37,200/-+ collection charges by 28.5.2003 otherwise coercive measures shall be taken against him. 10. He further submits that the Waqf Board has without considering the facts of the case has fixed the rent of the shop of the petitioner more than five times of the current rent which is improper, unjust and against the eye of law. 11. From the record it appears that the petitioner is tenant of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month which is disputed by respondent No. 5-landlord. It appears from the impugned order dated 23.2.2008 that while rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner the Waqf Board has enhanced the rent of the disputed shop at par with the market rate of rent prevalent in the area i.e. Rs. 1072/- per month. 200/- per month which is disputed by respondent No. 5-landlord. It appears from the impugned order dated 23.2.2008 that while rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner the Waqf Board has enhanced the rent of the disputed shop at par with the market rate of rent prevalent in the area i.e. Rs. 1072/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the enhancement of rent of the shop at the aforesaid enhanced rate. 12. Since disputed question of fact regarding enhancement of rent of the shop in question is involved and there is no material basis on which the rent can be computed in writ jurisdiction the disputed facts can only be decided on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which may be adduced by the parties before a Civil Court in suit. It is not feasible for this Court to go into the disputed question of fact in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for the aforesaid reasons. The petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy against his grievance by way of filing civil suit before the Civil Court. 13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of efficacious and alternative remedy before Civil Court. No order as to costs. ————