JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The release application under Section 21(1)(a) has been filed by the heirs of one Sharafat Hussain on the plea that the disputed shop was given on rent for a period of 11 months on 5.12.1973. A rent deed dated 5.12.1973 is said to have been executed by Sharafat Hussain in the name of Umrao Singh father of the respondents. 3. It is stated that even after expiry of the period of tenancy indicated in the rent deed dated 5.12.1973, the tenancy had continued from month to month. A dispute of ownership/title was raised by the respondents denying the execution of the rent deed. Rather the respondents have claimed ownership of the disputed shop being their ancestral property. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the release application after appreciation of the evidence on record on the ground that a serious dispute of ownership lies between the parties, the Rent Controller Authority in the summary proceeding cannot decide the said dispute. The matter went up in appeal. The appellate court has allowed the release application with the finding that the applicant has established his ownership over the disputed shop by documentary evidences and the respondent has not been able to establish that they are owner through their predecessor. On the bona fide need and comparative hardship, a finding has been recorded in favour of the applicants for allowing the release. Hence this writ petition. 4. Referring to the order of the Prescribed Authority and the documents on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicants have relied upon a gift deed dated 11.9.1938 Paper 47 Ga said to have been executed in favour of Abdul Razzak father of Sharafat Hussain. The registered sale deed dated 4.7.1919 and the subsequent rent deeds of March 1934 (Paper No. 31 C), 23rd July, 1948 (Paper No. 32 C), August 1950 (Paper No. 33 C) and the rent deed dated 5.12.1973 (Paper No. 34 C) have been relied upon to submit that the applicant's predecessor-in-interest namely Abdul Razzak was owner of the property and he had inducted the respondent's father namely Umrao Singh as tenant in the shop in question. 5. 5. These documents have been discarded by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the signatures and thumb impressions of the executors on the documents were not proved. The respondent has taken a specific stand that his father late Umrao Singh was an illiterate person, he could not read or write both the languages namely Urdu or Hindi. The finding is that in view of the categorical denial of signatures of Umrao Singh on the alleged rent deeds relied upon by the applicants, these documents could not be taken into consideration to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the other hand the respondents have also claimed ownership over the suit property and the dispute raised by them requires adjudication by leading both oral and documentary evidences. The disputed question of title cannot be decided by the Rent Controller Authority in a summary proceeding. 6. On the other hand, the appellate Court on the basis of assertions of the applicant in the affidavit Paper No. 44 Ga has concluded that an oral gift was executed in favour of Abdul Razzak on 11.9.1933 which was reduced to writing on 11.9.1938 which is Paper No. 47 Ga. Sharafat Hussain inherited the property from Abdul Razzak who inducted Late Umrao Singh as tenant. 7. Paper No. 47 Ga does not indicate the date 11.9.1933 reference of which finds place in paragraph 23' of the affidavit Paper No. 44 Ga. Thus the finding recorded by the appellate court that the gift deed dated 11.9.1938 was executed in furtherance of the oral gift dated 11.9.1933 is not supported by any cogent evidence. A serious dispute of title exist between the parties which requires adjudication by a Civil Court after appreciation of both oral and documentary evidences. 8. Indisputably, the provisions of C.P.C. in a rent control proceeding are applicable only to a limited extent. The Rent Controller Authority has committed illegality in returning the finding on the validity of the documents on the basis of affidavits filed by the contesting parties. The genuineness of the documents is required to be examined in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the ownership of the disputed shop. The finding recorded by the appellate court on the basis of sale deed dated 4.7.1919 and the gift deed dated 11.9.1938 are beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller Authority. 9. The genuineness of the documents is required to be examined in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the ownership of the disputed shop. The finding recorded by the appellate court on the basis of sale deed dated 4.7.1919 and the gift deed dated 11.9.1938 are beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller Authority. 9. Thus the order passed by the appellate court in allowing the release application cannot be sustained for the reason that the applicants have failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to the suit property and the premises could not be released for the bona fide need of a person who has failed to establish that he is owner of the disputed property. 10. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sheetal Prasad Kesharwani v. XVIth AD and SJ, Kanpur Nagar and others 2000 (2) ARC 172 , to submit that the landlord is not necessarily to be owner of the property, he can be a person to whom the tenant is under obligation to pay the rent. 11. The ratio of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent is misplaced inasmuch as in the present case the rent deed dated 5.12.1973 has been relied upon to establish that the petitioner's father namely Umrao Singh was inducted as tenant. The earlier rent deeds of the year 1938, 1948 and 1950 executed by different persons have been relied upon to connect the suit property. The signatures of Umrao Singh on these documents have categorically been denied by the petitioners while contesting the release proceeding. 12. In view of this, it cannot be accepted that the applicants have established that they are landlords of the suit property. Their claim of being the owners/landlords on the basis of rent deed of the year 1973 could not be proved by leading cogent evidence. The affidavits filed in this proceeding are not sufficient proof of relationship of landlord and tenant in view of the dispute raised regarding ownership of the property. 13. On this count, the appellate court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in entering into the serious disputed question of title over the suit property. 14. The order dated 10.5.2012 passed by the appellate court, therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 15. 13. On this count, the appellate court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in entering into the serious disputed question of title over the suit property. 14. The order dated 10.5.2012 passed by the appellate court, therefore, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 15. The parties are at liberty to raise their dispute before a Competent Court of law. The observations made by this Court on the documents on record would not come in their way in case the matter is contested in an appropriate proceeding. 16. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.