B.S. Patil, J.

1. These two revision petitions arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court at Bengaluru in S.C. No. 1178/2013 and S.C. No. 1179/2013.

2. Parties to these two petitions are one and the same. Facts involved and the legal questions raised are also one and the same. In fact, though the Court below has passed separate judgments, reasons assigned and the conclusion reached are similar. In both the cases, 'A' schedule property is same. Lessor and Lessee are common. Even the sub-lessee to whom the lessee has sub-let is also common, but the shop premises that were sub-let are different in both the cases. They are described in 'B' schedule to the suit. In the above circumstances, both these cases are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3. Both the suits were filed by the landlord/lessor for ejectment of the tenant/lessee. The Court below has decreed the suits with costs directing defendant No. 2 -sub-tenant/sub-lessee to handover vacant possession of suit schedule T3' property in favour of the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of the order.

4. Briefly stated, facts leading to the case are that plaintiff- M/s. Rao Bahadur