Prafulla C. Pant, J.: - In all these petitions, filed under Article 226/2207 of Constitution of India, same questions of fact and law are involved as such, these are being taken up together for the disposal. All these petitions are filed by the tenants against same landlord in respect of different tenements relating to which separate suits, filed before Judge Small Causes Court, for eviction of his tenants and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits were decreed by the Trial Court, and the revisions were dismissed by the District Judge, Haridwar, vide his orders dated 22.10.2003/27.10.2003. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the affi­davits, counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavits, on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Baba Dudha Dhari Barfani Ji Maharaj was the owner of the property in suits. Much before the present litigation, a Suit No. 75 of 1980, was filed by one Seva Dass against Baba Dudha Dhari, claiming title of the property which was finally decreed on 7.9.1980, in terms of compromise between said parties wherein the title of the Baba Dudha Dhari Barfani Ji Maharaj was accepted. The petitioners were tenants in the property in suit in different tenements of it. They filed applications in the year 1981, under section 30 (2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) against Baba Dudha Dhari and his two disciples Shyam Dass and Mahavir Dass. Only Baba Dudha Dhari filed his objections against said applications (in which the tenants had sought to deposit the rent in the Court of Munsif) and claimed his land lordship. Baba Dudha Dhari died on 2.8.1994. On his death Maharaj Prabhu Dass (plaintiff/present respondent) claiming that he succeeded rights of land lordship from Baba Dudha Dhari, instituted small cause suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 1995) against Bhagat Ram, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 1995 against Gurucharan Gaur Bali, petitioner, S.C.C. suit No. 15 of 1995 against Brahm Pal, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1995 against Kishan Lal, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1995 against Om Prakash, petitioner, S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 1995 against Gopal Giri, petitioner and S.C.C. Suit No. 25 of 1995 against Muniram, petitioner) before the Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar. The plaintiff/respondent sought relief of eviction of the petitioners and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits, after serving notices on them under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, stating that the petitioners/tenants have committed default of payment of rent as such their tenancy is terminated on expiry of thirty (30) days of service of notices. The present petitioners who were defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement in which they denied the title of the plaintiff and his predecessor in title Baba Dudha Dhari. It is also pleaded by them since in the proceedings under section 30 (2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 Baba Dudha Dhari had mentioned in his objections in 1981, that he had already terminated the tenancies of the petitioners as such the plaintiff cannot treat the petitioners as tenants thereafter, without waving the fact of termination of tenancy by Baba Dudha Dhari in the year 1981. It is also pleaded by the tenants (petitioners) that since Baba Dudha Dhari had earlier executed and registered 'Will' dated 7.7.1974, to create a charitable trust in respect of the property in suits as such the property stood exenoted under section 2 (bb) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It is further pleaded by them that in the circumstances Baba Dudha Dhari could not have transferred the property through the subsequent 'Will' dated 13.11.1983, executed in favour of plaintiff Prabhu Das. The petitioners have pleaded that it was Seva Das who was landlord of the property in dispute and that it is why the applications under section 30 were filed by the petitioners for depositing the rent under section 30 (2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Alleging that the Trial Court has committed error in decreeing the suits and the Revisional Court in dismissing the revisions, the same are sought to be quashed by, the petitioners. It is also pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petitions that suit instituted by the plaintiff were barred by time. 4. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent Mahant Prabhu Dass, it is stated that Baba Dudha Dhari Barfani Ji Maharaj vide his Will dated 13.11.1983, bequeathed the property in favour of his disci­pline (Mahant Prabhu Dass) who is the plaintiff in the suits. It is admitted that Baba Dudha Dhari died on 2.8.1994. 4. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent Mahant Prabhu Dass, it is stated that Baba Dudha Dhari Barfani Ji Maharaj vide his Will dated 13.11.1983, bequeathed the property in favour of his disci­pline (Mahant Prabhu Dass) who is the plaintiff in the suits. It is admitted that Baba Dudha Dhari died on 2.8.1994. It is pleaded that notices dated 21.4.1995, were got served on each of the petitioners under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by which the tenancies of the petitioners were terminated. It is further stated in the counter-affidavits that after the suits are decreed and affirmed by the Revisional Court, the present writ petitions are not maintainable as there is concurrent finding of fact in the matter. It is also pleaded that no one challenged the compromise decree dated 2.9.1980, passed in Suit No. 75 of 1980 as such it has attained finality as to the landlord-ship and ownership of Baba Dudha Dhari as against Seva Dass. It is also pleaded that the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise plea of adverse posses­sion against the real owner, after admitting their induction as tenants in the accommodations in questions. It is pleaded that since Seva Dass to whom the petitioners state rent was payable, had already conceded in the decree passed in Suit No. 75 of 1989, that Baba Dudha Dhari was the owner/landlord of the property. It is not open to say on the part of the petitioners that Baba Dudha Dhari and thereafter the plaintiff Mahant Prabhu Dass is not their landlord. It is pleaded that the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, are not applicable to the property in question. 5. In the rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners the aver­ment made in the writ petitions are reiterated. 6. Section 2 (bb) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act XIII of 1972) provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or pub­lic religious institutions. In Para 5 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the property in question which is known as Triveni Ashram is a public religious in­stitution and covered by section 2 (bb) of the aforesaid Act. In Para 5 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the property in question which is known as Triveni Ashram is a public religious in­stitution and covered by section 2 (bb) of the aforesaid Act. In reply to para 5 of the plaint it is stated in the written statement filed before the Judge Small Causes Court that contents of para of the plaint are legal. (In other words there is not denial of said fact). Apart from this, in para 17-B of written statement filed before the Trial Court, the defendants (present writ petitioners) have pleaded that vide 'Will' dated 7.7.1974. Baba Dudha Dhari created a trust of the property in question which the petitioners were tenants. As such, it is not open to them to say that the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 are applicable to the building. It is not disputed that Baba Dudha Dhari had died in the year 1994. As to the status of the writ petitioners that they were tenants is also not disputed fact. Only this much is stated by the writ petitioners that they were tenants of one, Seva Dass. It has been established on record that in a litigation between Seva Dass and Baba Dudha Dhari, a compromise decree was passed by the Court in Suit No. 75 of 1980, which was not challenged by any of the parties to said suit and as such, after Seva Das conceded title of Baba Dudha Dhari, his status as owner-cum-landlord cannot be denied by the writ petitioners. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the writ petitioners were tenants of Baba Dudha Dhari and after his death, they be­came tenants of his discipline Mahant Prabhu Dass. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the Courts below, particularly when the same is based no evidence on record. 7. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the Courts below, particularly when the same is based no evidence on record. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court of Annexure-5 to the writ petitions which is a, copy of the objections dated 7.11.1981, filed by Baba Dudha Dhari before Munsif Haridwar, against the application moved on behalf of the writ petitioners under section 30 (2) of U.P. Act, XIII of 1972, in which it is stated by the objector that the applicants (present writ petitioners) though were tenants but their tenancies have been terminated. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners argued that after the ten­ancies stood terminated in the year 1981, there remained no tenancy existing as such it cannot be said that tenancies of the writ petitioners were terminated vide notices dated 24.1.1995, (copy Annexure-2 to the petition to the writ peti­tion) served on the writ petitioners under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by the plain tiff/respondent. Here it is pertinent to mention that the proceedings under section 30 of U.P. Act, XIII of 1972 are summary in nature. Sub­section (2) of section 30 of U.P. Act, XIII of 1972 provides that where bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the persons who is entitled to received rent in respect of any building, the tenant may deposit the rent until such doubt is re­moved by a competent Court. On behalf of the writ petitioners it is not shown that on the objections filed by the Baba Dudha Dhari against applications of the writ petitioners for depositing the rent any finding was recorded by the Court, as to the determination of the tenancy. Rather, during argument, it is conceded by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that the writ petition­ers were allowed to deposit the rent under sub-section (2) of section 30 and they deposited rent till 15.6.1982 that being so, it is evident that though in the ob­servations Baba Dudha Dhari had pleaded that the tenancies of the writ pe­titioners were determined but the same was not accepted that's why the writ petitioners were allowed to deposit the rent under sub-section (2) by the con­cerned authority. 8. Next argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners relates to limitation. 8. Next argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners relates to limitation. Attention of this Court is drawn on behalf of the petitioners to Article 67 contained in the schedule of Limitation Act, 1963, which provides that the suit by landlord to recover possession from a tenant must be instituted within a period of twelve (12) years. It is pleaded on behalf of the writ peti­tioners that since in the objections filed in the year 1981, it was alleged that the tenancies of the writ petitioners were determined as such in 1993, twelve (12) years period had already expired, and the suit filed by the present plain­tiff/respondent in the year 1995, was barred by limitation. 9. I have carefully discussed above that allegation of determination of tenancies was not accepted and petitioners were allowed to deposit the rent un­der section 30 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The above provisions contained in Article 67 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that period of twelve (12) years would start from the date of termination of the tenancy. It is con­ceded that the writ petitioners continued to deposit the rent under section 30 of the U.P. Act, 13 of 1972, subsequent to the year 1981. Therefore, it is not open for the writ petitioners to say that the period of the twelve (12) years stood ex­pired in the year 1993. Issuing notices to the writ petitioners in the year 1995, under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, itself indicates waiver of the determination of the tenancies if any alleged earlier. Therefore, this Court finds no substances in the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners in this regard. This view gets support from the case decided by Allahabad High Court in Sardar Tarvinder Singh v. Sardar Ranjit Singh, 1998(32)ALR30. 10. Section 116 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contains principle of hold­ing over and provides that if a property remained in the possession after de­termination of lease and the lesser accepts rent, or otherwise assents to his con­tinuing in possession, in absence of agreement to the contrary lease would con­tinue from year to year or month to month, as the case may be. 11. 11. Section 116.of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which contains Principles of Estoppel, provides that no tenant of immovable property shall deny that the landlord, at the beginning of the tenancy, had no title in the immovable prop­erty. I agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Shri Tej Bhan Madan v. IInd Additional District Judge, 1980 ARC 502 in which it is mentioned that the estoppel applies not only as against the landlord with whom the tenancy began but also the subsequent landlord, who entered into the shoes of the origi­nal landlord as successors in interest in the property. 12. Referring to the case Ram Avtar Goel v. Dr. Jagannath Gupta, 2001 (45) ALR 749 it is ar­gued on behalf of the petitioners that in the notice dated 24.1.1995, plaintiff-respondent has mentioned that there was default in payment of rent on the part of the writ petitioners and the tenancies are terminated, but the Courts below have decreed the suit on the ground that the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiff. In this connection attention of this Court is drawn to section 20 of U.P. Act, XIII of 1972, which provides the grounds on the basis of which suit for eviction can be instituted by the landlord. I have examined the matter raised before this Court. Firstly provisions of section 20 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, are inapplicable to the present case as it is a case of charitable institution. The case of Ram Avtar Goel (supra) was the one to which the provisions of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972, were applicable. In said case the Allahabad High Court had taken the view that the decree of eviction should be passed on the ground on which the tenancy is terminated by the landlord. In the present case there is no applicability of the aforesaid Act rather the determination of tenancies is un­der section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Though the default is alleged in the notices but the tenancy could have been terminated even without any such ground. Even if the title is denied in replies to the notices, and in the written statements it constitutes a sufficient ground to attract the ejetment of the defendant/tenant. 13. Though the default is alleged in the notices but the tenancy could have been terminated even without any such ground. Even if the title is denied in replies to the notices, and in the written statements it constitutes a sufficient ground to attract the ejetment of the defendant/tenant. 13. On behalf of the petitioners attention of this Court is drawn to the case of J.J. Lal v. M.R. Murali, 2002 (47) ALR 230 (SC) in which it has been observed that the tenant is not estopped form denying title of the landlord if it comes to an end, subsequent to creation of tenancy nor is he estopped from questioning the deviated title of a transferee to his landlord. Admittedly the petitioners themselves continued to deposit rent under section 30 of the Act, even after 1981, as such they cannot say that the tenancies stood earlier terminated, particularly when termination of tenancies are made by fresh notices which amounts waiver of the earlier no­tices, if any. 14. For the reasons as discussed above this Court finds no error of law com­mitted by the Courts below in the impugned orders. Accordingly all the seven writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 1209 (M.S.) 2003, Writ Petition No. 1210 (M.S.) 2003, Writ Petition No. 1211 (M.S.) 2003, Writ Petition No. 1212 (M.S.) 2003, Writ Petition No. 1213 (M.S.) 2003, Writ Petition No. 1214 (M.S.) 2003 and Writ Petition No. 1171 (M.S.) 2003 are liable to be dismissed. The same are dismissed. The petitioners are allowed one month's time from today to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the landlord/respondent failing which the decree passed by the Trial Court may be got executed. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.