Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28098 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 995 of 2007 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Respondent :- Rama Kant And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash,Vishwakant Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd.Adil Khan and Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 977 of 2007 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Respondent :- Rama Kant And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash,Vishwakant Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohammad Adil Khan,Mohammad Alam Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 06.05.2003, whereby the JSCC Suit filed by the petitioner was decreed insofar as it related to a decree of eviction as well as the order dated 07.08.2006, whereby the revision was dismissed and the revision preferred by the respondent was allowed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property in question by virtue of a sale executed in his favour and a sale certificate issued in his favour. After purchasing the property, the petitioner served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act claiming arrears of rent and thereafter filed a JSCC Suit for decree of arrears of rent and ejectment. In the said suit, as many as four issue were framed. Issue No.1 was with regard to the ownership of the petitioner, which was decided in his favour. With regard to issue Nos.2 and 3 with regard to the relationship of the lessor and lessee, the same was decided against the petitioner by holding that no document was produced to establish the relationship of the lessor and lessee in between the petitioner and the respondent or in between the erstwhile owner and the respondent. As such, the suit was decreed for ejectment, but was dismissed insofar as it sought a decree of arrears of rent. The said judgement was challenged by the petitioner as well as by the respondent by preferring revisions. The revisions were decided by the revisional court vide judgement dated 07.08.2006 holding that as the relationship of the land lord and tenant would not be established, the suit could not be decreed for ejectment by the JSCC in view of the mandate of Section 15 of the Provisional Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 read with II Schedule as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As the petitioner had claimed that he had purchased the property, the respondent denied the said fact by stating that he had entered into unauthorized occupation in the year 1978 and had thus claimed the title by way of adverse possession. 4. Be that as it may, considering the mandate of Section 15 of the Act read with II Schedule as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, without establishing the relationship of lessor and lessee, the suit could not be instituted before the JSCC and thus, no error can be found in the two orders. 5. However, the petitioner would be entitled to institute fresh proceedings before the appropriate Civil Court for ejectment of the unauthorized occupation, if so advised, in accordance with law. 6. Both the petitions are disposed of. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench