B. S. Verma, J.— (Oral) Since the controversy involved in all these four writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2193 of 2008 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2008 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun (for short the J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2003, Laxman Bhartiya Vidyalaya Trust and Management Society and another Vs. Sri D.P.Verma and the judgment and order dated 2-9-2008 passed by the revisional court, i.e. District Judge, Dehradun, in S.C.C. Revision No.11 of 2008. The learned J.S.C.C. had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of rent and damages pendente lite and future and for eviction of the petitioner-defendant, while the revision preferred against the judgment and decree of the J.S.C.C. has been dismissed in the revisional Court. 3. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2201 of 2008 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2008 passed by the learned J.S.C.C. in S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2004, Laxman Bhartiya Vidyalaya Trust and Management Society and another Vs. Sri Ashok Kumar Banerjee and the judgment and order dated 2-9-2008 passed by the revisional court, i.e. District Judge, Dehradun, in S.C.C. Revision No.10 of 2008. The learned J.S.C.C. had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of rent and damages pendente lite and future and for eviction of the petitioner-defendant, while the revision preferred against the judgment and decree of the J.S.C.C. has been dismissed in the revisional Court. 4. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2205 of 2008 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2008, passed by the learned J.S.C.C. in S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 2003, Laxman Bhartiya Vidyalaya Trust and Management Society and another Vs. Sri A.P.S.Tomar and the judgment and order dated 2-9-2008 passed by the revisional court, i.e. District Judge, Dehradun, in S.C.C. Revision No.8 of 2008. The learned J.S.C.C. had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of rent and damages pendente lite and future and for eviction of the petitioner-defendant, while the revision preferred against the judgment and decree of the J.S.C.C. has been dismissed in the revisional Court. 5. The learned J.S.C.C. had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of rent and damages pendente lite and future and for eviction of the petitioner-defendant, while the revision preferred against the judgment and decree of the J.S.C.C. has been dismissed in the revisional Court. 5. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2206 of 2008 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2008 passed by the learned J.S.C.C. in S.C.C. Suit No. 7 of 2003, Laxman Bhartiya Vidyalaya Trust and Management Society and another Vs. Smt. Shashi Tyagi and the judgment and order dated 2-9-2008 passed by the revisional court, i.e. District Judge, Dehradun, in S.C.C. Revision No.9 of 2008. The learned J.S.C.C. had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of rent and damages pendente lite and future and for eviction of the petitioner-defendant, while the revision preferred against the judgment and decree of the J.S.C.C. has been dismissed in the revisional Court. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned J.S.C.C. as well as the judgment and orders passed by the revisional Court, the petitioners have filed present writ petitions. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that there were four other tenants apart from these petitioners and the plaintiff-respondents also filed separate S.C.C. Suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and for eviction of the tenant-defendants. All the four other S.C.C. suits were decreed against the defendants and the revisions preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the J.S.C.C. were dismissed by the revisional court by separate orders passed in each case. 8. Undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondents in all the cases are one and the same. Only the tenant-defendants are different persons. The controversy involved in those S.C.C. Suits and the grounds of challenge in the S.C.C. Revisions were similar as that of the S.C.C. suits giving rise to the present writ petitions. Ultimately, the petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and decrees passed in the S.C.C. Suits and orders passed in the revisions, preferred four separate writ petitions before this Court, e.g. Mr. H.K.Seth preferred Writ Petition No. 1699 of 2008 (M/S) Sri H.K.Seth Vs. Laxman Bhartiya Vidayalaya Trust and another, Smt. Sarla Raman preferred writ petition no. 1700 of 2008 against the respondents. Sri D.P.Khanduri preferred Writ Petition NO. 1701 of 2008(M/S) and Sri K.S. Panwar preferred Writ Petition No. 1702 of 2008 (M/S). H.K.Seth preferred Writ Petition No. 1699 of 2008 (M/S) Sri H.K.Seth Vs. Laxman Bhartiya Vidayalaya Trust and another, Smt. Sarla Raman preferred writ petition no. 1700 of 2008 against the respondents. Sri D.P.Khanduri preferred Writ Petition NO. 1701 of 2008(M/S) and Sri K.S. Panwar preferred Writ Petition No. 1702 of 2008 (M/S). 9. The bunch of the aforesaid four writ petitions has already been decided by this Court by a common judgment and order dated 26-9-2008 thereby all those four writ petitions were dismissed in limine, holding that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners and both the courts below have agreed concurrently with the contention of the respondent-plaintiffs that the property in question was exempted from the operation of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972. It was also held that the property in question, under the occupation of the petitioner as a tenant, belonged to a Recognised Educational Institution, namely, Laxman Bhartiya Vidayalaya as well as the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, namely Laxman Bhartiya Vidayalaya Trust. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 26-9-2008, one of the petitioners, namely petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1700 of 2008(M/S), Smt. Sarla Raman preferred Special Leave Petition, (Civil) No. 6255 of 2009, Sarla Raman Vs. Laxman Bhartiya Vidayalaya and another, before the Apex Court. The petitioner before the Apex Court sought permission to withdraw that petition with liberty to file a review petition before the High Court. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of by order dated 11-9-2009. 11. A perusal of the record reveals that in all the four writ petitions, review applications were filed for review of the order dated 26-9-2008, which were heard and decided by this Court by a common order dated 8-9-2009. In the order dated 8-9-2009 passed in the review petitions, this Court has observed that there is no change in position as far as this review petition is concerned as well as there is no case made out or pleaded that the Society in question, even if registered in a particular year, would either cease to be Society registered under the Societies Registration Act or that it was not a recognized Educational institution. Ultimately, the review applications were dismissed. 12. Ultimately, the review applications were dismissed. 12. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8-9-2009, Smt. Sarla Raman, one of the petitioners in those petitions, again preferred Special Leave Petition, which was registered as S.L.P. (Civil) No. 6747 of 2010 Sarla Raman Vs. Laxman Bhartiya Vidyalaya Trust and another before the Apex Court. 13. The Apex Court while dismissing the said Special Leave Petition by order 19-4-2010 has observed that the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the findings recorded by the trial Court and the Revisional Court on the issue of applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to the premises in question were based on correct appreciation of the factual and legal position. 14. The Apex Court further observed that “There is another reason for our disinclination to entertain the special leave petition, namely, the petitioner’s failure to challenge order dated 26.9.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1700 of 2008(M/S).” The Apex Court allowed three months’ time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. 15. In the case at hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned J.S.C.C. as well as the Revisional Court did not consider this aspect of the matter that the original Society of the respondents does not exist and the respondents again formed a new society bearing registration No. 714 of 1981, while previously the registration number of the old society was 440 of 1958. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that in the other set of four writ petitions, involving almost similar controversy, the matter stood concluded by the Apex Court verdict. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material placed before this Court including the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties. 17. Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondents have brought the S.C.C. Suits against the defendant-petitioners in the year 2003 onwards. The petitioners while filling their written statement in the suit or before the J.S.C.C. as well as before the revisional Court never raised any such plea. They have not even pressed any such point for consideration before the learned J.S.C.C. as to the formation of new society or non-existence of any such original society. Moreover, the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been disputed at any stage of the suit or proceeding. They have not even pressed any such point for consideration before the learned J.S.C.C. as to the formation of new society or non-existence of any such original society. Moreover, the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been disputed at any stage of the suit or proceeding. From a perusal of the entire material placed before this Court on behalf of the petitioners, I find that authority of the respondent-society whether registered in a particular year would neither cease to be Society under the Societies Registration Act nor it can be said that it was not a recognized Educational institution. It has not been disputed by the petitioners that, after the endowment and entrustment of his immovable properties including the property in dispute in the S.C.C. Suits by late Vishnu Datt Garaya by a registered will dated 1-10-1959 upon the respondent trust, the ownership was ever transferred in favour of any other person or that the ownership stood waived in any manner by the respondent trust. On the other hand, the defendant-petitioners have themselves admitted the relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties. Even otherwise, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners for the first time before a writ court to raise any such issue pertaining to appraisal of evidence so as record a finding of fact and that too when the controversy involved in the present writ petitions stood resolved by the ultimate verdict of the Apex Court in the identical matters arising out of the S.C.C. Suits involving similar controversy. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that all these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 26-9-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1699 of 2008 (M/S), Sri H.K.Seth Vs. Laxman Bhartiya Vidayalaya Trust and another and three other writ petitions no. 1700 of 2008, 1701 of 2008 and 1702 of 2008. 19. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions stands resolved by the earlier order dated 26-9-2008 passed by this Court, therefore, all the four writ petition are liable to be dismissed in terms of the order dated 26-9-2008, which has been upheld by the Apex Court, referred to above. However, to do complete justice, each of the petitioners may be granted one year’s time to vacate the disputed premises. 20. All the four writ petitions are dismissed in terms of the order dated 26-9-2008, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1699 of 2008 (M/S), Sri H.K.Seth Vs. Laxman Bhartiya Vidayalaya Trust and another and three other writ petitions no. 1700 of 2008, 1701 of 2008 and 1702 of 2008. Each of the petitioners herein is granted one year’s time to vacate the disputed premises and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-respondents provided the petitioners furnish a written undertaking before the learned Judge, Small Cause Court concerned to that effect within a period of eight weeks from today. It is further provided that the petitioners shall pay/deposit the entire decretal amount before the J.S.C.C. within a period of eight weeks and they continue to pay the damages as directed by the learned J.S.C.C. in the impugned judgment and decree per month latest by the seventh day of the following month. In case of default on the part of the petitioners, as directed above, the respondents would be at liberty to get the judgment and decree passed by the learned J.S.C.C. executed, in accordance with law. 21. Interim order dated 29-12-2008 passed in each writ petition by this Court is vacated. _____________