Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J. - Sri M.K. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below have erred in holding that the petitioner had denied the title of the land lord. In his submission, in view of Section 111 of Evidence Act, the title of the land lord who has initially created tenancy, cannot be denied and in this case, it was Sri Nand Gopal Vadhavan who has purchased tenanted property from one Smt. Vijai Laxmi and his title has not been denied. The attention of the court has been drawn towards Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court Page 1264 Sheela and others Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash. 2. Refuting the submission of Sri Gupta, Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava has submitted that the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit on the ground of denial of title of land lord. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1958 Allahabad page 847 Hasmat Husain Vs. Saghir Ahmad and others. Matter requires consideration. 3. Matter requires consideration. 4. Issue notice. 5. Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava has filed caveat on behalf of sole respondent. He is granted 2 weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed 2 weeks thereafter. 6. List immediately thereafter. 7. As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed property shall remain stayed provided petitioner deposits entire decreetal amount within a period of four weeks along with damages and continue to deposit Rs. 3500/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the disputed accommodation. The damages has been enhanced keeping in mind the situation of the house in posh locality of the city and huge area occupied by the petitioner 8. In case of default, interim order shall stand vacated.