Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44866 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4604 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shahid Ali Respondent :- Sant Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Petitioner :- Manju Nagaur,Anju Singh,Sushila Pandey Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard Ms. Manju Nagaur, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court No.19, Lucknow in JSCC Suit No.42 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for staying the Suit, taking recourse to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected as well as, order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the revisional court, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner, was also dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that a Suit in question was filed being Revisional Suit No.2012 of 2013 by Queents Anglo Sanskrit Inter College, Lucknow arraying 15 defendants including the petitioner herein, for a suit for declaration that the plaintiff to the said Suit be declared as owner of the property in question. The respondent herein, instituted a Suit against the petitioner being SCC Suit No.42 of 2015 claiming a decree of rent and ejectment. In the said Suit the respondent claimed himself to be the landlord to whom rent was payable. It was also alleged in the said Suit that earlier inter se in between the same parties, SCC Suit No.129 of 2014 was filed and as the petitioner had unconditionally paid the dues, the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was given to the petitioner and the Suit, preferred by the respondent, was not decreed. It was further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner further defaulted the payment of rent, for which subsequent Suit was filed. The petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 alleging that the Suit No.2012 of 2013 has been filed by the third party plaintiff claiming himself to be the landlord and thus, the subsequent Suit ought to have been stayed. The said contention was rejected by the Small Causes Court concerned and the revision preferred was also dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second Suit for same cause of action was not maintainable and thus, the powers ought to have been exercised under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said contention has been rightly repelled by both the Courts, as in the Suit No.42 of 2015 the respondent has claimed a decree of rent and ejectment claiming himself to be the landlord. Section 2(f) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 defines 'landlord' to be a person to whom rent is payable. Admittedly, inter se in between the parties earlier, Suit No.29 of 2014 had also been filed which was decided, thus, the status of the petitioner as a tenant stood crystallized. The other Suit being Suit No.2012 of 2013, is a Suit for declaration of the rights and the same is not for claiming any decree for rent and ejectment, thus, the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was not maintainable and was rightly rejected. 5. In view of the above, no good ground for interference is made out and the petition is dismissed. 6. As the Suit is pending since the year 2015, the Judge Small Causes Court No.19, Lucknow is directed to conclude the Suit without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, with all expedition, preferably within a period of six months. 7. The Senior Registrar of this Court shall communicate this order to Judge Small Causes Court No.19, Lucknow for its compliance, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench