VIMLA SRIVASTAVA Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the landlord's writ petition against the order dated 22.5.1982 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 2' dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner-land lord. FACTS

(2.) The petitioner-landlord filed a suit after terminating the tenancy of the tenant. The premises in dispute is residential premises. According to landlord-petitioner, the respondent No. 2 is his tenant. The rate of rent was Rs. 60 per month and Rs. 10 per month for water charges. Petitioner filed a suit after terminating the tenancy on the ground that the tenant-respondent No. 2 has sub-let the premises in dispute to respondent No. 3 Sri Babulal son of Ram Bhawan alias Barka and he is in arrears of rent. The Judge. Small Causes Courts, Allahabad by its order dated 5.9.1998 held that the tenant is not in arrears of rent but he has held that the respondent No. 2 has sub-let the premises in dispute to respondent No. 3. as such he decreed the suit for eviction. Aggrieved by his order, the tenant-respondent No. 2 filed a revision. The petitioner-landlord also filed a revision. Both the revisions were taken up together. The revision of the landlord is dismissed whereas the revision of the tenant-respondent No. 2 was allowed. It was held that there was no sub-letting. Hence the present petition. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner says that Judge Small Causes Court had given a finding that respondent No. 2 has sub-let a part of premises to respondent No. 3. It is finding of fact. It could not be interfered under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act. This is so held by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Luxmi Kishor v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545. Counsel for the respondents say that judgment of Judge Small Causes Court was not in accordance with law. The revisional court rightly interfered with it. The counsel for the respondents further argued that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid, as it was not mentioned in the notice that respondent No. 2 has sub-let the premises to the respondent No. 3. On the submission of the counsels following points arises for determination.