Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – In this writ petition on 9.12.2013 following order was passed on the order sheet: “Heard Miss Madhurima Bhargav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Abid Ali who has just now filed vakalatnama on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No. 3. Shri Mohd. Abid Ali has placed on record certified Copy of judgment of 1977 and has also referred to second appeal No. 279/2000 which is stated to be pending. Both the parties may file written arguments within a week. Learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that respondents are paying rent to the Municipal Board. If it is so then photo copies of receipts may be annexed alongwith the written arguments. Judgment Reserved.” 2. This is landlords’ writ petition, who have filed suit for eviction against opposite parties Mo. 3 and 4, Mustafa Husain and Bashiruddin in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 409 of 1987, Smt. Hazard Bano and others v. Mustafa Husain and others. Defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 3 filed an application before the J.S.C.C., Lucknow in the suit under section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act stating therein that complicated question of title was in­volved and praying that the plaint must be returned for filing before regular Civil Court. J.S.C.C, Lucknow rejected the application through order dated 30.9.1997. Against the said order, Mustafa Husain, defendant No. 1/opposite party No. 3 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 138 of 1987. XV A.D.J., Lucknow allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 20.2.1998, set aside the order of the Trial Court, allowed the application of defendant No. 1 and directed the J.S.C.C. to return the plaint for filing before competent Court. The order of the Revisional Court has been challenged by the landlords through this writ petition. 3. According to petitioners, late Sri Mohammad Bux, husband of landlady petitioner No. 1 and father of landlords, petitioners No. 2 to 14 purchased the shop in dispute through registered sale-deed dated 16.5.1986 from Maharaja Kunwar Mohd. Amir Haider Khan (hereinafter referred to as Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan); since before the execution of the sale-deed, defendant No. 1, opposite party No. 3 was tenant of Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan in the shop in dispute which was constructed over nuzul land, which had been given on lease to Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan (or his predecessor). The period of lease expired. Amir Haider Khan (hereinafter referred to as Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan); since before the execution of the sale-deed, defendant No. 1, opposite party No. 3 was tenant of Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan in the shop in dispute which was constructed over nuzul land, which had been given on lease to Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan (or his predecessor). The period of lease expired. Initially Lucknow Improvement Trust was the owner of the land, over a small portion of which shop in dispute was constructed. Thereafter, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and thereafter Nagar Nigam, Lucknow became the owner of the said land comprised in plots No. 7, 8 and 9. The land was given on lease for 30 years to the predecessor in interest of Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan in 1921. Under the terms of the lease, building was to be constructed within two years. The building was not constructed but the leasehold rights were transferred to Marharaja K.M.A.H. Khan in 1946 by the previous lessee. His name was also mutated thereafter. The lease was not renewed and thereafter notice to vacate was given by Nagar Mahapalika. Thereafter, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow filed suit for recovery of the arrears of rent/lease amount and ejectment. After the decision of the suit and the first appeal by the D.J./A.D.J., matter came up before this Court in the form of Second Appeal No. 271 of 1973. The appeal was allowed. Suit was decreed for ejectment and for recovery of ar­rears of lease amount through judgment dated 12.12.1977. 4. Application under section 23 of P.S.C.C. Act was filed on the ground that after the said decree by the High Court in 1977, Maharaja K.M.A.H. Khan the seller of M. Bux lost his right and title. However, it was asserted on behalf of petitioners before the Courts below as well as during the arguments in this writ petition that the decree of 1977 was not executed by Nagar Mahapalika. 5. It was asserted by opposite party No. 3 that the shop in dispute was constructed by him. 6. Petitioners also filed Regular Suit No. 314 of 1997, Smt. Hajra Bano and others v. Mustafa Hussain and others against opposite party No. 3. In the said suit it was asserted that tenant intended to make changes and new construction in the shop in dispute and he must be restrained there-from. The said suit was dismissed on 8.2.1999 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, South Lucknow. In the said suit it was asserted that tenant intended to make changes and new construction in the shop in dispute and he must be restrained there-from. The said suit was dismissed on 8.2.1999 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, South Lucknow. Against the said decree petitioners filed R.C. Appeal No. 59 of 1999. XV A.D.J., Lucknow dismissed the appeal on 31.5.2000. Against the said decree, petitioners have filed Second Appeal No. 279 of 2000 in this High Court which is pending. The appeal has not yet been admitted. 7. In the aforesaid regular suit, both the Courts below held that the shop was constructed by opposite party No. 3, Mustafa Hussain. It was also held that the sale-deed dated 16.5.1986 did not confer any title upon Mohd. Bux, predecessor-in-Interest of the plaintiffs petitioners and opposite party No. 3, Mustafa Hussain was not the tenant but co-owner and provisions of section 116, Evidence Act were not attracted. 8. In view of the said findings in the regular suit, the view taken by the J.S.C.C cannot be sustained. Findings of regular Civil Court have got overriding effect over the judgments of J.S.C.C. vide Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad and another, 2001 (42) ALR 131 (SC). 9. The question as to whether suit should have been dismissed or plaint should have been returned need not be decided in this writ petition as opposite party No. 3 himself prayed for return of the plaint. 10. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the lower Revisional Court. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. Petition Dismissed. _____________