Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan on behalf of petitioner. 2. Pursuant to order passed yesterday, some photostat copies of receipts have been placed on record and it is stated that since May, 2013, rent at the rate of Rs.800/- per month is being paid by the respondents No.3 and 4 to Nazim Nadwa under directions of Waqf Board. 3. Petitioner filed impleadment application in Section 21 proceedings, which had been initiated by opposite party No.2 against Parshottam Das Gupta and Madan Gupta, opposite parties No.3 & 4 in the form of P.A. Case No.66 of 2005, Haji Abdul Majid Vs. Purshottam and another. Prescribed Authority/ J.S.C.C., Court No.18, Lucknow rejected the impleadment application on 02.03.2013 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. 4. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Lucknow, rent of which is Rs.16/- per month. Respondents No.3 & 4 are continuing as tenants of the shop in dispute and before them their father was continuing as tenant of the shop in dispute since before 1965. Kallu was father of respondents No.3 & 4, who died in 1972. According to the petitioner's case a Waqf deed of the house of which shop in dispute is a part was executed on 04.11.1965. According to the respondent No.2, applicant in the release application, Waqf deed was cancelled in 1970 and thereafter the owner Smt. Wazeer Begum widow of Haji Abid Ali, who executed the Waqf deed gifted the property to one Smt. Shamim Jahan. Smt. Shamim Jahan filed a suit for declaration against the Waqf Board which suit was ultimately dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 12.07.2010. Smt. Shamim Jahan executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent No.2, who filed suit for specific performance in the form of Regular Suit No.104 of 1999, which was decreed on 15.12.2001, however in the suit Waqf Board was not made party. Pursuant to the decree Smt. Shamim Jahan executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 on 29.03.2002. On the basis of the said sale deed respondent No.2 claiming to be landlord filed the release application in question. 5. Most of the photostat copies of the receipts, which have been placed on record were issued by original owner Mohd. Abid and his wife. On the basis of the said sale deed respondent No.2 claiming to be landlord filed the release application in question. 5. Most of the photostat copies of the receipts, which have been placed on record were issued by original owner Mohd. Abid and his wife. A receipt of 1986 has also been filed, which was issued by Smt. Shamim Jahan. In some receipts of 1960s property is described as Waqf. However, in a receipt issued in January, 1971 owners were shown as Abid Ali and his wife. Same is the position in photostat copies of receipts of 1972, 1973 and 1974. One receipt of 11.06.2013 issued by Nazim Nadwa is of Rs.800/- rent for June, 2013 and the other is of May, 2013 for two months rent of Rs.1600/- for April and May, 2013. One is of 01.08.2013 acknowledging receipt of Rs.800/- as rent for July, 2013 by Nazim Nadwa. Accordingly, it is quite clear that uptil May 2013 tenants were paying no rent to Waqf Board or Nazim Nadwa. Nothing was stated in the impleadment application regarding any receipt of rent by the Waqf Board or any person on its behalf uptil May 2013. 6. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that Waqf Board exercised or asserted any control over respondents No.3 & 4. It is quite clear that Waqf Board has come forward only to help respondents No.3 & 4, who are holding a valuable property on virtually no rent. Rs.16/- per month is no rent for a shop by today's standard. 7. Production of receipts of 1960s and 1970s issued in favour of the tenants by the original owners clearly shows that Waqf Board is protecting the interest of the tenants and both are jointly opposing the release. Why rent to Waqf Board or Nazim Nadwa was not paid by respondents No.3 & 4 before April/ May, 2013 has not been explained. 8. I do not find any error in the impugned order. 9. Release proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 cannot be converted into a title suit. Earlier also decree of specific performance was passed by a regular court. However in that suit, petitioner was not party, hence the decree passed therein is not in the least binding upon the petitioner. 9. Release proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 cannot be converted into a title suit. Earlier also decree of specific performance was passed by a regular court. However in that suit, petitioner was not party, hence the decree passed therein is not in the least binding upon the petitioner. Similarly whatever order is passed in the instant proceedings under Section 21 of the Act it will not be binding upon the petitioner. This will be for the additional reason that petitioner's impleadment application has been successfully resisted by applicant. 10. It is further directed that the order passed in release proceedings and the statements made in the pleadings shall not be admissible as evidence of ownership of respondent No.2 under Section 13 of the Evidence Act. Petitioner is at liberty to initiate any proceedings permissible under law either against respondent No.2 or respondents No.3 & 4 or against both of them, which it considers appropriate. Whenever such proceedings are initiated neither orders passed in the earlier specific performance suit nor any order which may be passed in the release application shall be taken into consideration. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has also referred to Sections 90 & 92 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Both the sections relate to suit or proceedings relating to title or possession of a Waqf property or in respect of a Waqf property. In summary proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the question whether property in dispute is Waqf property or not cannot be decided. Moreover, whether the release application is allowed or rejected, it will not make least difference upon the Waqf Board. Even if Waqf Board is impleaded and release application is rejected Waqf Baord will not be able to get possession of the property or exercise any control thereupon by virtue of the said order. The only result would be that respondents No.3 & 4 would become tenants without any landlord, a status which is equivalent to ownership. As receipts issued by Nazim Nadwa have been issued only during pendency of the release application and after eight years of filing of the release application, hence it cannot be taken into consideration in the least. By filing the impleadment application, Waqf Board has not acted bonafidely. 12. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. _________________