The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of exclusive possession in inferring sub-letting and the determination of the relationship between the landlady and the tenant in a suit for ejectment.

( 1 ) THE dispute relates with regard to an accommodation in the form of a Kotha situate in mohalla farash Tola. lahsil Sadar district Azamgarh. It was under the tenancy of late Ram Charan initially at a monthly rent of Rs. 25. Ram Charan died in the month of September. 1981. The tenancy rights were inherited by defendant No. 1-Bacchi Devi, widow and two daughters of the deceased-tenant. A S. C. C. Suit No. 10 of 1992 was instituted by Smt. Khairulnnisan. present respondent No. 3 against Smt. Bacchi Devi widow of the deceased tenant and his two daughters, who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1. 2 and 3. The ejectment of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant was sought on the ground that they have sub-let the tenanted accommodation in favour of servajeet son of Jag Mohan who was impleaded as defendant No. 4 in the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants resisting the allegations made by the plaintiff-respondent No. 3-Khairulnisan. It was maintained that Servajeet who is now petitioner No. 2, was not the sub-tenant in the tenanted accommodation but was. in fact, joint tenant and in occupation of the disputed accommodation right from the life-time of Ram Charan. The suit was decreed by the munsif City. Azamgarh on 27. 5. 1992 recording a categorical finding that the legal heirs of deceased-tenant Ram Charan have, in fact, sub-let the tenanted accommodation in favour of servajeet, The widow of the deceased tenant died and consequently a revision application No. 198 of 1992 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) was preferred by Smt. Prabhawati Devi. daughter of the deceased Ram Charan and others. The landlady Smt. Khairulnnisan also filed a Civil Revision No. 215 of 1992 under section 25 of the Act challenging the findings of the court below on certain other points which are not germane to be recited for the purposes of decision in the present writ petition. Both the revision applications were dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge. Azamgarh by order dated 5. 1. 1993. Smt. Prabhawati who died during the pendency of the present petition and servajeet came up before this Court under Article 236 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders passed by the trial court as well as revlsional court.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri R. C. Gupta. appearing on behalf of the landlady-respondent No. 3.

( 3 ) SRI S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that Servajeet-petitioner No. 2 was never a sub-tenant of the disputed accommodation but, in fact, was a Joint tenant in his own right with Ram Charan and was in joint possession of the disputed accommodation with him and continued to enjoy the said position with the legal heirs of the deceased Ram Charan and. therefore, he cannot be labelled as a sub-tenant and. therefore, the order of eviction passed against the petitioners is wholly illegal and is based on misreading of the evidence. It was also urged that the respondent No. 3.-Smt. Khairulnnisan was never the owner of the disputed accommodation and relationship of landlady and tenant did not subsist between her and the petitioners. All these submissions have been emphatically repelled by Sri R. C. Gupta appearing on behalf of the landlady.

( 4 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties, the moot points which arise for determination by this Court are (1) whether the petitioner No. 2 is occupying the tenanted accommodation as a subtenant or he was a joint tenant along with late Ram Cnaran who admittedly was the tenant in the disputed shop. and (2) whether the suit at the instance of Smt. Khairulnnisan for ejectment of the petitioners is maintainable.

( 5 ) TO begin with, it may be mentioned that the two courts below have recorded very elaborate and reasoned concurrent finding of fact that Servajeet was let into possession and inducted as sub-tenant in the tenanted accommodation after th