Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—This petition has been heard and disposed of in open Court for reasons to be recorded later. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows.

2. Heard Sri S.P. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kesharwani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 26.2.2005, passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raebareli in S.C.C. Civil Revision No. 607 of 2004, Daya Shankar Upadhyaya v. Naresh Chandra and others, preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2004 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Raebareli decreeing the suit of landlord-respondents 1 to 3 for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner.

4. In the present case, both the Courts below i.e. learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Raebareli and the revisional Court i.e. Illrd Additional District Judge, Raebareli have recorded concurrent findings of facts, forming the same opinion that the petitioner-tenant was liable for ejectment from the property, accommodation in dispute, situate in town Jais in district Raebareli, as he had defaulted in making payment of rent to the landlords for the rented premises since 1.5.1985 to 31.3.1987 (rent for 23 months).

5. It emerges from record that a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Raebareli. It was pleaded in the plaint that the respondents 1 to 3 were the landlords of premises in question, situate in town Jais, which is a municipality of district Raebareli. An agreement/rent note was executed between the landlords Naresh Chandra and others and Sri Daya Shankar Upadhyaya, petitioner on 1.4.1985 for the purposes of renting out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month. The tenancy of petitioner Sri Daya Shankar Upadhyaya began from 1st day of each month and expired on last day of the month according to English calendar. The tenant had defaulted in making payment of rent and he fell in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,900/- (for 23 months) on 31.3.1987. A legal notice dated 17.4.1987 was sent to the tenant-petitioner through registered post on 18.4.1987 demanding arrears of rent and determining the tenancy. The tenant refused to accept the notice on 23.4.1987, hence a suit was filed by the landlords, which was decreed by the learned Small Causes Court on 13.8.2004. On the basis of pleadings of parties, three issues were framed by the said Court i.e. whether the plaintiff-landlords were entitled for Rs. 6,900/- as arrears of rent from the tenant; whether the tenant was liable to be evicted from the premises in question; and to what relief, if any, were the plaintiff-landlords entitled? The learned Court below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the tenant had defaulted in making payment of rent despite a written agreement/rent note executed by him and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It was also proved before the Court on the basis of documentary evidence that the plaintiffs Naresh Chandra, Ramesh Chandra and Umesh Chandra, sons of late Chaudhary Gopi Nath, were landlords of the premises which was rented out to the petitioner on 1.4.1985 after executing an agreement/rent note. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. After hearing the parties and going through the material on record, the revisional Court has dismissed the revision vide its judgment and order dated 26.2.2005, confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below. The judgment and orders of both the learned Courts below have been challenged in this writ petition.

6. Sri S.P. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not a tenant, he was in fact landlord of the premises in question, which was his ancestral hous