JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been taken out by the petitioner, who is original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 1176 of 2016, wherein the trial Court has rejected the application below Exh.21 by order dated 5.9.2018 for deposit of rental and other amounts, to be paid by the respondents-defendants. 2. The short facts of the case are that, according to the petitioner, he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 23.1.2013 from its owner one Abedaben Abdulhamid Shaikh. It is contended that the original owner has rented the suit premises on 20.12.2007 for a period of five years at the rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the defendant which period has expired on 19.12.2012 and, thereafter, there was no extension of rent agreement. It is contended that, on 23.1.2013, the petitioner purchased the property by a registered sale deed and on 17.1.2014, an agreement of rent was executed by and between present petitioner and the respondents, whereby it was agreed that the tenant shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as rent and also pay the electric charges, maintenance charges etc. It is also contended that the period of occupancy was to expire on 29.12.2014 and, thereafter there is no fresh agreement or any sort of writing permitting the respondents to continue the occupation of the suit property. As the defendants did not pay the rent, the plaintiff has instituted the suit, wherein interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has filed an application below Exh.21 for recovery of rent and mesne profit. That application has been rejected by learned trial Judge vide order dated 5.9.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above order, original plaintiff has preferred present Special Civil Application. 3. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.M. Bhatt for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Ray, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pratik Bhatiya, learned advocate for newly added respondent No. 3. 4. While referring to the application as well as the documentary evidence produced with this matter, Mr. 3. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.M. Bhatt for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Ray, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pratik Bhatiya, learned advocate for newly added respondent No. 3. 4. While referring to the application as well as the documentary evidence produced with this matter, Mr. P.M. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted the same facts, which are narrated in the memo of petition and has submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error of facts and law in rejecting the application solely on the basis that there is a dispute regarding transfer of tenancy rights, ownership etc. and when the tenant has raised the dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant, matter requires evidence and, on that ground, learned trial Court has rejected the application, which is not in consonance with the legal position. He has also submitted that the respondents cannot be permitted to remain in possession without paying anything to anybody. It is also contended that respondent No. 1 has filed one Civil Suit No. 1202 of 2018 against predecessor in title of the property in question with a view to avoid deposit of rental amount. He has also contended that the property is purchased by the petitioner herein and respondent tenant has to pay rent thereof. He has also contended that no person can be given any premium to occupy the premises without paying any rent or charge for the same. He has also contended that the defendant has not produced any evidence regarding payment to the earlier landlord. On this ground, it is submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court be set aside and the application of the petitioner filed at Exh.21 in the suit be allowed and respondents- tenant be directed to deposit the amount in the Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. D.R. Ray, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently submitted that trial Court has not committed any serious error of facts and has rightly rejected the application by the impugned order. While referring to the impugned order and the reply filed by the respondents, he has submitted that as per the averments of the defendants, the plaintiff has illegally become the owner of the disputed property and the plaintiff has never asked for rent from the defendants. While referring to the impugned order and the reply filed by the respondents, he has submitted that as per the averments of the defendants, the plaintiff has illegally become the owner of the disputed property and the plaintiff has never asked for rent from the defendants. It is also contended that the agreement of rent is concocted one and no tenancy right has been transferred in favour of the plaintiff. According to him, the original agreement entered between the original landlord and the defendants is still in force and as the dispute has arisen the defendant has filed Civil Suit No. 1202 of 2018 and the same is pending. He has also contended that he has paid the rent upto 2013 to the original landlord, which she has accepted. It is also contended that the plaintiff has cheated and by playing fraud, created an agreement in which the date is overwritten and defendants have never signed the same. According to him, when the dispute is regarding ownership of the suit premises in question, the tenant cannot be saddled with paying any amount or depositing the amount with the Court. He has also contended that the question of title of the property is in dispute and it requires evidence to be led by both the sides. According to him, the learned trial Court has considered this aspect in proper perspective and, therefore, no interference is warranted in this matter. He has prayed to dismiss present petition. 6. Mr. Praik Bhatiya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has stated that he has nothing to say in the matter and the Court may pass appropriate order. 7. On perusal of the material on record, it clearly transpires that it is the say of the defendants that they have obtained the suit property from earlier land owner, who is respondent No. 3 herein at the rent of Rs. 2,000/- only and at that time, it was agreed between Abedaben and himself that tenant may spend money for repairing of the premises and thereafter she would sold the property to him. It is also the averment in reply at page 36 of defendant No. 1 that so-called agreement produced by the petitioner is not genuine one and the signature of the defendants have been obtained by keeping them in dark. It is also the averment in reply at page 36 of defendant No. 1 that so-called agreement produced by the petitioner is not genuine one and the signature of the defendants have been obtained by keeping them in dark. He has also contended that the defendants have paid rent upto 20.11.2013 for which receipt dated 20.12.2013 is produced. He has also contended that the demand made by the plaintiff of Rs. 1 Lac as arrears of rent and for mesne profit of Rs. 12,000/- per month from 29.12.2014 onwards is illegal. He has also disputed the facts of the plaint that he has paid Rs. 29,193/- towards maintenance charges to the society on behalf of defendants. He has also contended that he has filed regular suit against the original landlord. He was not informed by the original landlord that the premises has been sold out to present petitioner and on this ground, he has prayed to dismiss the suit and application Exh.21. 8. On perusal of the material placed on record, it is found that the impugned rent agreement has been produced in the matter wherein there is signature of both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and it is a notarized document dated 17.1.2014. The conditions thereof is payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month in addition to that tenant has to pay monthly maintenance charges, electric charges etc. Now the stand taken by the tenant is that their signatures have been obtained by putting them in dark. Thus, the factum of the agreement can be prima facie believed. Now, it is for the defendant to prove that so-called document was really not executed by them in favour of the present petitioner. Now, admittedly defendants are the tenants of the suit premises but, by filing separate suit, they are not paying any amount to anybody and using the property without making any payment whatsoever. It is his categorical statement that he has paid the rent upto 20.12.2013, which means that from January 2014 onwards he has not paid any amount to anybody. 9. The question of ownership cannot be raised by the tenant against the owner. If the tenant raised any question regarding title of the landlord, he automatically becomes liable to eviction from the suit property. Now, admittedly as per the agreement, tenant has to pay monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- plus other taxes. 9. The question of ownership cannot be raised by the tenant against the owner. If the tenant raised any question regarding title of the landlord, he automatically becomes liable to eviction from the suit property. Now, admittedly as per the agreement, tenant has to pay monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- plus other taxes. In view of these facts, when the tenant has not paid any rent from 1.1.2014, he is liable to pay the amount of mesne profit after the date of expiration of agreement i.e. 29.12.2014 and for prior period, he has to pay rent at the agreed rate from 1.1.2014 to 28.12.2014. So far as mesne profit is concerned, the plaintiff has demanded Rs. 12,000/- but, there is no basis for such amount. The mesne profit can be calculated at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- plus taxes, whatever may be, for the period from 29.12.2014 onwards. 10. Admittedly, the defendant tenant has not deposited any amount in the Court. Now, in view of the fact that the rate of rent was Rs. 5,000/- plus taxes, for the purpose of calculation of rent as well as mesne profit from 1.1.2014 till 31.8.2019 (for 68 months), it would come to Rs. 3,40,000/- plus maintenance charges etc. paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the respondent-tenant and taxes are also liable to be paid by him. He is also required to pay mesne profit at the same rate till the disposal of the suit. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it clearly transpires that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the case and, hence, passed erroneous order dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner, which warrants interference. 11. In view of the above, present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.9.2018 passed below Exh.21 in Civil Suit No. 1176 of 2016 by learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, is hereby quashed and set aside. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit Rs. 3,40,000/- plus Rs. 29,193/- maintenance charges paid by the petitioner, in all Rs. 3,69,193/- in the trial Court within a period of two months and shall also deposit the amount of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- till the final disposal of the suit in the trial Court. If the respondent fails to deposit the amount of arrears of Rs. 29,193/- maintenance charges paid by the petitioner, in all Rs. 3,69,193/- in the trial Court within a period of two months and shall also deposit the amount of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- till the final disposal of the suit in the trial Court. If the respondent fails to deposit the amount of arrears of Rs. 3,69,193/- in a stipulated period and making payment/deposit of mesne profit and taxes, necessary adverse order may be passed by the trial Court which includes striking off the defence. 12. With these observations, present petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.