JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present application is filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for modification of status quo order dated 7.8.2014 passed in RSA No. 219 of 2014 with prayer that applicant be permitted to carry out necessary repairs of existing structure and partially be allowed to extend the house of applicant over vacant land of suit property. Brief facts of the case 2. Pran Nath and others sons of deceased Durga Parshad filed suit for possession of land entered in Khata No. 225, Khatauni No. 705 Khasra No. 2360 measuring 0-01-43 hectares as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 situated in Mohal Ghuggar Tehsil Palampur District Kangra H.P. It is pleaded that plaintiffs are co-owners of suit land. It is pleaded that half share of suit land was purchased by father of plaintiffs in the year 1974-75 in auction which was conducted by learned Civil Judge 1st Class Kangra in execution of decree. It is pleaded that suit land remained recorded in revenue record in self ownership and possession of plaintiffs and other co-owners till 1988-89. It is pleaded that plaintiffs are in Army and defendant with the connivance of revenue staff recorded his possession as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land in an illegal manner. It is pleaded that defendant was not inducted as tenant by plaintiffs at any point of time. It is pleaded that no rent was paid by defendant to plaintiffs at any point of time. It is pleaded that possession of defendant is illegal and prayer for decree of possession sought in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file present suit and relationship of tenants and landlord exists between the parties and further pleaded that present suit is not legally and factually maintainable and plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. 4. Learned Trial Court framed following issues as per pleading of parties on 7.6.1999:- 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for? …..OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs estopped by their act and conduct to file this suit? …..OPD 3. Whether plaintiffs and defendant are landlord and tenant and this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? …..OPD 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of possession as prayed for? …..OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs estopped by their act and conduct to file this suit? …..OPD 3. Whether plaintiffs and defendant are landlord and tenant and this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? …..OPD 4. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable as prayed for? ……OPD 5. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? …..OPD 6. Relief. 5. Learned Trial Court decided issue No.1 in affirmative and issues Nos. 2 to 5 in negative. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiffs partly and passed decree of possession qua share of plaintiffs duly recorded in revenue record. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court Shri Jagat Ram defendant filed appeal under Section 96 of CPC and same was disposed of by learned Additional District Judge-III Kangra at Dharamshala camp at Palampur on 21.2.2014. Learned first Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by Jagat Ram. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court Jagat Ram filed RSA No. 219 of 2014 title Jagat Ram vs. Pran Nath and others in Hon'ble High Court of H.P. 8. High Court of H.P. on dated 7.8.2014 directed both parties to maintain status quo as of today qua nature and possession of suit land till final disposal of RSA. Shri Jagat Ram has filed present application for modification of interim order dated 7.8.2014 passed by High Court of H.P. in RSA No. 219 of 2014. 9. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants and Court also perused entire record carefuly. 10. Following points arise for determination in civil revision petition:- Point No.1 Whether application filed under Section 151 CPC by applicant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of application? Point No.2 Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant be permitted to carry out necessary repair of structure situated over the suit land is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Point No.2 Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant be permitted to carry out necessary repair of structure situated over the suit land is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Applicant did not file any site plan of structure situated over suit land and applicant also did not file any site plan of proposed repair of structure situated over the suit land. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow the applicant to repair the structure in absence of any site plan because as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 Ext.P5 placed on record in ownership column names of Pran Nath, Prem Ballabh, Anil Kumar and Paras Nath sons of Durga Dass have been recorded as owners of half share of suit property and name of Rattan Chand son of Hari Ram has been recorded as owner of half share of suit property in ownership column. In possession column name of Jagat Ram applicant recorded as non-occupancy tenant. Nature of Khasra No. 2360 has been recorded as Kuhl Awal (Irrigated land). There is no entry of structure in the name of Jagat Ram in record of right Ext.P5 placed on record. Record of right Ext.P5 jamabandi for the year 1992-93 has been prepared by public official in discharge of official duty and is relevant fact under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. In view of the fact that there is no entry of structure over suit land as per jamabandi Ext.P5 placed on record it is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow the applicant to repair the structure because tenancy of applicant is in dispute in present RSA and learned Trial Court and learned first Appellate Court have held that applicant is not tenant over suit land and decree of possession has been granted against the applicant by both Courts and entry of non-occupancy tenant in favour of applicant was recorded for the first time in the month of January 1991 by order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Palampur which is under challenge in present RSA and has not attained the stage of finality. It is well settled law that non-occupancy tenant means tenant at will of landlord. It is well settled law that non-occupancy tenant means tenant at will of landlord. It is well settled law that status of non-occupancy tenant can be terminated at the will of landlord at any point of time unless landlord acquired proprietory rights in accordance with law. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant be permitted to partially extend his house over suit land is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Tenancy of applicant is in dispute inter se parties. No receipt of payment of rent is placed on record. It is well settled law that tenancy is bilateral agreement inter se parties. It is well settled law that bilateral agreement of tenancy should be proved by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled law that tenant cannot be permitted to raise new construction over vacant land without express or implied consent of owners of land. It is also well settled law that question of title can be decided by Civil Court. See (1998)8 SCC 751 title Beni Madhav Singh vs. Ram Naresh. See (2000)5 SCC 652 title State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (dead) through his LRs. See 1976 PLJ 183 title Sucha Singh vs. Nand Singh. See 1965 PLJ 55 title Gram Panchayat Dari vs. State of Punjab. Dispute inter se parties in present case is about title in suit property. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to allow application filed by applicant till disposal of RSA. In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice to modify interim order dated 7.8.2014. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 application filed under Section 151 CPC is dismissed. Jamabandi Ext.P5 for the year 1992-93 placed on record will form part and parcel of order. Observations will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of present application. CMP No. 5166 of 2016 is disposed of.