JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the sake of brevity) in respect of plot No. 1664 (area 30 acres) on the allegations that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were sirdar's and without any authority the petitioner had occupied the land, hence the petitioner may be dispossessed. 2. The suit was contested by the petitioner alleging that he has been in possession over the land since prior to the date of vesting and has been continuously continuing in possession and that the suit was barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed. 3. It may be stated that the case has got a chequered history inasmuch as a lease was obtained on 21-2-1957 by the petitioner from Sukhey, respondent No. 2, who died and his heirs have been brought on record. A suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 was tiled by respondents Nos. 1 & 2 against the petitioners. This suit was numbered as suit No. 1 of 1959. This suit of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed after contest on 2-11-1960 and Dakhal was also obtained on 14-6-61. The petitioner against whom this decree was granted did not file any appeal, nor second appeal, nor he came to this Court under writ jurisdiction. In view of these facts it is clear that in respect of the land in dispute, a decree dated 2-11-1960 under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act has become final. 4. The present suit under Section 209 has been decreed by the trial court and also by the Additional Commissioner and a second appeal has also been filed. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders of the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 passed in the proceedings under Section 209. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the lease deed, dated 21-2-1957 was not challenged by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a civil suit within the period of three years from the date of lease, hence the rights of the respondents Nos. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the lease deed, dated 21-2-1957 was not challenged by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a civil suit within the period of three years from the date of lease, hence the rights of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 came to an end and their suit cannot be decreed. Reliance has been placed on Nageshwar Ram v. Bans Bahadur Singh, (1952 RD page 313). In this case Honble Agrawala, J. has held that in case a lease has been granted under the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act to declare that the lease was null and void, the suit can be filed in the Civil Court. It has also been laid down that any suit can also be filed under Section 60 or any other appropriate section read with Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and in that suit the relief could have been claimed that the defendant was not a tenant and also whether defendant was retaining the possession of the plots in dispute otherwise than in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, it is clear that under Section 60 read with Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act or any other appropriate section the suit can be filed and in that case it can be decided as to whether the defendant was a tenant or not and whether he was in lawful possession. 6. In the instant case earlier suit was filed under Section 59 by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioner and that suit was decreed on 2-11-1960 and that decree has become final against the petitioner. I am accordingly of the view that the decree in the earlier suit has become final as the same was not challenged by the petitioner. It is too late in the day to challenge the decree dated 2-11-1960 when subsequent suit under Section 209 has been filed against the petitioner. 7. The writ of certiorari is not as a matter of course. It can be refused in case substantial justice has been done between the parties. It is too late in the day to challenge the decree dated 2-11-1960 when subsequent suit under Section 209 has been filed against the petitioner. 7. The writ of certiorari is not as a matter of course. It can be refused in case substantial justice has been done between the parties. In the instant case a suit under Section 59 was already filed against the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute and that suit was decreed against the petitioner as stated above on 2-11-1960 and that judgment and decree became final. Now the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the finality of that decree by taking a plea that no such suit was maintainable before the Revenue Court and otherwise on merit also I am satisfied that the earlier suit filed under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was correctly maintainable in the revenue court. 8. No other point has been pressed. I am satisfied that the trial court, the learned Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue have correctly decided the case against the petitioner. No error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out and the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.