Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – Heard Sri Q.M. Haque, learned Counsel for tenant petitioner and Sri Ghaus Beg, learned Counsel for landlady respondent No. 1. 2. This writ petition arises out of suit instituted by landlady opposite party No. 1 against original tenant petitioner since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 347 of 1995, Zubaida Khatoon v. Munna Baxshi. J.S.C.C., Lucknow decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 26.10.2005. Against the said decree, original tenant petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 74 of 2005, Munna Baxshi v. Smt. Zubaida Khatoon. A.D.J., Court No. 17, Lucknow dismissed the revision through judgment and order dated 8.4.2010, hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute consists of three rooms, verandah, kothari, Court­yard, bath-room etc. which is part of a house. According to the plaint allega­tions, defendant petitioner was tenant of the accommodation in dispute at the rate of Rs. 40 per month and rent since September, 1982 till October 1995 had not been paid amounting to Rs. 6320. It was also stated that plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant on 30.10.1995 through registered post terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent however the said notice could not be served, hence on 16.11.1995 it was affixed on the building in dispute and a copy was also sent un­der postal certificate (U.P.C.). 4. It was stated that landlady had purchased the house of which accom­modation in dispute is a part in the year 1948. Copy of the sale-deed is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Plaintiff’s witnesses stated that the tenancy started in 1968-69. 5. Defendant petitioner denied the relationship of landlady and tenant. He also asserted that the vendors of the plaintiff had no title to the property in dispute. Landlady filed some counter foils of receipts of the period prior to 1982 containing the signatures of defendant. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued the following four points: (i) The Courts below wrongly held that it was for the defendant to dis­prove the title of the plaintiff’s vendors and legally it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove that her vendors had title to the property in dispute. (ii) In any case through the sale-deed of 1948 only super-structure was sold and not the land beneath that. (ii) In any case through the sale-deed of 1948 only super-structure was sold and not the land beneath that. (iii) Even if it is assumed that in the year 1968/ 69 tenancy in between plaintiff and defendant came into existence, it was void as at that time de­fendant was minor aged 14 years. (This point was not raised before the Trial Court. It was also not taken in the written statement. This point was argued before the lower Revisional Court for the first time.) (iv) On the counter foils, signatures of the defendant are not there. 7. As far as first point is concerned, the sale-deed itself is admissible in evidence for proving the title of the vendors under section 13 of Evidence Act. Defendant could neither prove his title to the property in dispute nor of anyone else. In fact no one else even claimed title to the property in dispute. If building was let out by the plaintiff to the defendant then defendant is estopped from denying or questioning the title of the plaintiff as provided under section 116, Evidence Act. Trial Court has mentioned that extract of house tax records of the Nagar Nigam of 1976 was filed (paper No. ga-25) showing Asgar Ali, husband of plaintiff to be owner and Mohd. Hasan (original petitioner, who was also known by the name of Munna Bakshi) was shown to be one of the tenants. The subsequent record of house tax register of 1986 filed by the tenant did not show anyone’s name in the column of occupier owner. The Trial Court rightly held that it could be an erroneous omission and in any case as it did not show the de­fendant to be owner in possession, hence it could not support the defendant’s case in the least. 8. With respect to second point, even if it is assumed that through the sale-deed of 1948 only the superstructure was sold, it will not make any differ­ence. The superstructure/ building was also subject-matter of lease/ tenancy as the same was not of the open land alone. The tenancy was also of the super­structure even if land beneath is excluded. For this point also section 116, Evidence Act is relevant. 9. The superstructure/ building was also subject-matter of lease/ tenancy as the same was not of the open land alone. The tenancy was also of the super­structure even if land beneath is excluded. For this point also section 116, Evidence Act is relevant. 9. As far as the third question of agreement for lease being void or other­wise is concerned, learned Counsel for petitioner has cited Ritesh Agrawal v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, 2008 (8) SCC 205 , holding that a minor cannot enter into contract. If this pleading had been taken in the written statement and argued before the Trial Court, the factual controversy as to whether defendant was minor in 1968 or not could have been decided and plaintiff might have adduced evidence to show that defendant was not minor in 1968-69 when tenancy started. Even if in 1968-69 defendant was minor and the agreement was subse­quently discovered to be void on that ground still by virtue of section 65 of Contract Act, defendant would be liable to restore the advantage (deliver the possession) under the agreement to the plaintiff. Further, the position would also be deemed to have changed after four or five years when according to the defendant he became major. Since the date of majority, payment of rent and con­tinuance in possession amounted to valid tenancy. 10. As far as the last argument regarding counter foils is concerned, the Courts below have held that the counter foils contained the signatures of the original petitioner. Copies of the counter foils, which were filed in the suit by the landlady have been annexed as Annexures-2 to 6 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel has argued that they did not even contain the name of the pe­titioner. This is not correct. Name of tenant is mentioned as Mohd. Hussain Qadri @ Munna Baxshi, in the counter foil dated 10.4.1970 as Mohd. Hussain Qadari (Munna Baxshi) in the counter foil dated 10.1.1971 and as Munna Baxshi Sahab in the counter foil dated 7.3.1982. Accordingly, it is quite clear that counter foils contained the name of defendant. Both the Courts below have held that receipts contained the signatures of the tenant. It is a finding of fact suffering from no error of law. 11. Accordingly, it is quite clear that counter foils contained the name of defendant. Both the Courts below have held that receipts contained the signatures of the tenant. It is a finding of fact suffering from no error of law. 11. Learned Counsel for petitioner has cited two authorities of this Court in Radha Devi v. Special Judge, 2013 (96) ALR 729 and Mahendra Pal Singh v. D.J., 2004 (55) ALR 562. The said authorities do not support the contention of the petitioner as in those cases com­plicated question of title was found involved. 12. Learned Counsel for respondent has cited an authority of the Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad, 2001 (42) ALR 151 (SC), holding that tenant cannot avoid eviction under U.P. Rent Control Act merely by disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments, decree and order. Writ petition is dismissed. 14. Tenants petitioners are granted six months time to vacate on the fol­lowing conditions. 1. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 6000 (at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. Lucknow and shall immediately be paid to the landlady respondent. 2. Within one month from today tenants- petitioners shall file an un­dertaking before the J.S.C.C. Lucknow to the effect that within six months from the date of this judgment, he will willingly vacate and handover pos­session of the property in dispute to the landlady respondent. 3. Within one month from today tenants shall deposit entire decretal amount due till date (after adjusting any amount already deposited) before the J.S.C.C., Lucknow for immediate payment to landlord-respondent. 4. If within one month undertaking is not filed or the amount of Rs. 6000 and the decretal amount are not deposited then from today till actual eviction tenants shall be liable to pay Rs. 1500 per month as rent/damages for use and occupation. 5. Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6000 and decretal amount property in dispute is not vacated within six months then since after six months till actual vacation tenants petitioners shall be liable to pay rent/damages @ Rs. 1500 per month. 1500 per month as rent/damages for use and occupation. 5. Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6000 and decretal amount property in dispute is not vacated within six months then since after six months till actual vacation tenants petitioners shall be liable to pay rent/damages @ Rs. 1500 per month. It is needless to add that this direction of payment of Rs. 1500 per month is in addition to the right of the landlady to file contempt petition and to get the accommodation in dispute vacated through execution. Petition Dismissed. __________