JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The eviction decree passed by the Courts below on the ground of default in payment of rent is under challenge in the present petition. The eviction suit was filed by one Satendra Nath Mishra claiming ownership on the basis of sale deed dated 27.6.2012. 3. The ground of eviction was that the tenant committed default in payment of rent. A legal notice dated 2.7.2012 was served upon the tenant determining tenancy which was replied on 9.7.2012. Two notices dated 21.8.2012 were again sent and received on 3.9.2012. The tenant denied the title of the landlord to the suit property and also stated that after the dismissal of S.C.C. Suit No.60 of 1980 (Shri Hafizul Rehman and 5 Ors. v. Smt. Dhan Laxmi and 2 Ors.), the landlord lost his right to receive rent. Practically, the tenant sought to renounce his character in the property as such and denied the title of the landlord on the ground that the sale deed would not confer any valid title in him. 4. It appears that in the present suit namely S.C.C. Suit No.6 of 2012 (Satendra Nath Mishra v. Kanhaiya Lal), the tenant did not engage any counsel rather filed written statement Paper No.22Ka to state that he would contest the matter himself. 5. On the contest of the parties, issues were framed. On Issue No.1 regarding default in payment of rent, the statement of the tenant in the Written Statement that he had stopped paying rent after 29.1.1983 to the erstwhile landlord namely the plaintiff in S.C.C. Suit No.60 of 1980 (Shri Hafizul Rehman and 5 Ors. v. Smt. Dhan Laxmi and 2 Ors.) on account of dismissal of the said suit, was considered and it was held that the tenant was in default on the date of notice, he was in arrears of more than four months of rent. 6. In so far as the landlord tenant relationship is concerned, it appears that no contest was raised by the tenant and as such no issue was framed. 7. Challenging these findings, first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not having legal acumen and as such he could not contest the matter effectively. 6. In so far as the landlord tenant relationship is concerned, it appears that no contest was raised by the tenant and as such no issue was framed. 7. Challenging these findings, first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not having legal acumen and as such he could not contest the matter effectively. He may be granted liberty to engage a counsel and contest the matter afresh before the Court below after remand. 8. To deal with this submission, suffice it to say that the tenant himself pleaded before the Court below that he would not engage a counsel and contested the matter himself. The fact of non payment of rent was admitted to him. It is also not disputed that this tenancy had devolved upon the petitioner/defendant from his father, who was the original tenant. 9. In order to make payment of rent to the landlord, no legal advice was required. In view of admission of this fact, it is evident that the petitioner was in default on the date of service of notice or filing of eviction suit in the year 2012. For narration of these facts no legal advise is required. Moreover, the petitioner is not disputing the facts recorded in the order, therefore, the submission of the petitioner in this regard is without any force. 10. Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that photocopies of certain documents were brought on record to state that there was a dispute regarding ownership of title and the tenant was not in a position to ascertain as to who was the actual landlord of the suit property. As a result of it, he could not tender rent as different persons were claiming their ownership. These documents have wrongly been rejected by the Court below on the premises that being photostat copies these were not admissible in evidence. 11. To deal with this submission, suffice it to say that even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that there was a dispute regarding ownership of the suit property and the tenant was under some confusion as to whom the rent was payable, it was incumbent upon him to deposit the rent in the Court. 11. To deal with this submission, suffice it to say that even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that there was a dispute regarding ownership of the suit property and the tenant was under some confusion as to whom the rent was payable, it was incumbent upon him to deposit the rent in the Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had moved an application under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to deposit the rent. As such even if the documents which are said to be brought on record to raise this dispute are admitted in evidence, that would not make any difference on the merits of the case. 12. Last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any case, no valid title through sale deed dated 27.6.2012 would be conferred upon the plaintiff inasmuch as the legal liability contemplated under the sale deed were not fulfilled by the executor of the sale deed. Admittedly, the sale deed by which the title was conferred upon the plaintiff is a registered document. The dispute regarding transfer of title or the liability under the sale deed are matters between the parties to the sale deed. No third person can raise a dispute in this regard. 13. However, as the tenant has denied the title of the landlord/plaintiff in the present suit, it would be an additional ground for his eviction from the suit property as per provisions of Clause (f) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. 14. On all the above counts, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the eviction decree are found misconceived. 15. The petition is Dismissed.