Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26856 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6805 of 2021 Petitioner :- Aliya Mikey And Ors. Respondent :- Addl. Dist. And Session J. Court No.4 Spl.J. E.C. Act And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan,Mohd. Zaid Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Sidharth Dhaon Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 05.02.2001 passed in SCC No.274 of 1970 as well as judgment and order dated 24.12.2020 passed in Revision No.89 of 2001. 3. The facts that emerge from the documents on record are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking a decree of eviction and arrears of rent being Suit No.274 of 1970. In the said suit it was claimed by the petitioner that he is the landlord and the opposite party is the tenant. In the said suit, a written statement was filed by the tenant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was stated that the property belong to Nazool and the owner of the property was the State and not the plaintiff. It was also stated that the defendant had sold the property to his wife Smt. Ram Beti who was the landlord qua the defendant. In the light of the pleadings, four points of determination were framed - the first being whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. Based upon the oral testimonies, the JSC Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. With regard to the agreement, JSC Court recorded that on the first page, signatures of the tenant was available but on other two pages, the signatures were not there, as such, the suit came to be dismissed. Challenging the said, a revision was preferred by the landlord which too has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.12.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the said two orders specifically places reliance on Paras - 10 & 11 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that earlier in between the parties, SCC Suit No.109 of 1962 was initiated and a judgment was passed in favour of the petitioner on 29.09.1962 which was placed as Paper No.Ga-285 in which respondent had admitted that he was the tenant. It is stated that the said suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the landlord and damages of Rs.100/- were also awarded. The said judgment was challenged in an appeal by the tenant Late Ram Charan by filing Appeal No.344 of 1962. The said appeal was dismissed except insofar as the damages were awarded and the damages were reduced from Rs.100/- to Rs.20/-. It is also stated that the said judgment was filed as Paper No.Ga- 10. It is also claimed that subsequent to the passing of the judgment, in terms of the tenancy agreement/compromise entered on 14.02.1963, the rent was paid to the landlord till March, 1969. 5. In the counter affidavit filed, there is no denial to the averments contained in Paras 10 & 11 of the writ petition and except there being evasive denial, there is no denial of the fact that the said two judgments were brought on record and were filed before the Court below as Document Nos.Ga- 285 and Ga-10. 6. In the absence of there being denial and there being no consideration of the said two judgments, it is clear that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties as is evident from the two judgments which have attained finality inter se the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioners could not demonstrate or prove any document to the effect that they were owner of the property. The said contention is liable to be rejected for the sole reason that in terms of the definition of 'landlord' contained in Section 3(j) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, 'landlord' means a person to whom rent is payable; the ownership is not relevant for determining the relationship in between landlord and tenant. 8. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established inter se the parties in the judgments, the same issue could not have been re-agitated or could have been gone into unless there was any averment that there was any change of circumstances, which has not been pleaded or established, as such, both the impugned judgments dated 05.02.2001 & 24.12.2020 cannot be sustained and are quashed. 9. As admittedly, no rent was paid by the tenant, the suit was clearly liable to be decreed, as such, the suit is decreed and eviction decree is passed against the respondents. 10. Respondents shall vacate the premises within a period of four months from today and shall handover the vacant and physical possession of the premises in question to the petitioner and to no one else. 11. Present petition stands allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench