ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner Mandir Market Welfare Association (Regd.) has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents for not taking any action of demolition in respect of the shops in possession of the members of the petitioner’s Association situated at Doodh Nath Mahadev Mandir, Sector V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and occupation of the shops in question of the members association is also sought.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Mr. Sandeep Sethi appearing for respondent No. 4 as well as Mr. Sub-hash Sharma for MCD.
3. The case, as set out by the petitioner, is that member of the petitioner’s Association have been in occupation of the shops situated in the premises of Doodh Nath Mahadev Mandir Shopping Centre, Sector 5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, for the last 3 decades nearly. Petitioners claim that they are tenants of respondent No. 4 and have produced on record various rent receipts. Certificate from Bank from one of the shopkeeper Janta Commercial College regarding encashment of cheques issued for a sum of Rs. 250/- each have been produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these cheques were in respect of rent.
4. It is stated that while respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have indicated that they do not propose to take any action for demolition of the shops, as the land on which the shops are situated is not under the governance of MCD. Learned counsel submits that petitioner’s members are tenants in occupation for long and their livelihood would depend on the shops and the premises in their occupation should not be demolished by respondent No. 1 at the behest of respondent No. 4.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, urged before me that the petitioners do not deserve any relief from this Court being trespassers and unauthorised occupants. The documents on which reliance is sought to be placed are forged receipts. The main thrust of Mr. Sethi’s submission is that receipts are purported to be issued in 1972 while allotment of land in favor of the respondent, itself was made on 31st December, 1976. This being so, Mr. Sethi urged the receipts apparently would be forged receipts.
6. On noticing that the letter of allotment was addressed to respondent No. 4 at the present address of the said respondent, certain queries were raised and clarifications sought. In response Mr. Sethi very candidly, on seeking instructions from the office bearers of respondent No. 4, submitted that there was in existence a small temple even prior to 1970, where worship was being done. Hence respondent No. 4 was in occupation of land which was subsequently allotted. This being the situation, the submission of respondent No. 4 that petitioner’s members could but have been in occupation prior to December, 1976, prima facie, does not hold good. This apart considering the aforesaid assertions and counter assertions, I am of the view that this petition raises disputed questions of fact, namely, whether the petitioners are tenants, licensees or trespassers, whether the receipts issued were forged ones or not? These disputed questions cannot be gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be in civil forum. The aforesaid narration was only with a view to bring out the disputed nature of facts and controversy involved in the matter and nothing expressed hereinbefore shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. The interim direction granted in this writ petition would ensure to the benefit of petitioner for a period of 10 days during which the petitioner may seek his remedy in the civil forum.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of.