The possession of a sub-tenant is not entitled to regularisation under Section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act based solely on the landlord's knowledge.

This writ petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the judgment and order dated 30-3-1989 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S. C. C. Revision No. 50 of 1987 and S. C. C. Revision No. 52 of 1987 whereby both the revisions were allowed and the judgment and decree of the J. S. C. C. Muzaffarnagar decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner vide judgment dated 11-9-1987 was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

2. The dispute relates to premises No. 68 and 73 situate in Mandir Moran Mohalla Sarvat Darwaja Sharki, Muzaffarnagar of which the petitioner is the landlord and respondent No. 2, is the tenant. It is alleged that he had illegally inducted respondent No. 3 as the sub-tenant in 1983 without the consent of the landlord. The petitioner filed suit for ejectment of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the premises No. 68 and 73 mentioned above, on the allegations that Vishnu Chand father of respondent No. 2 Om Prakash was the tenant of both the premises. After his death Om Prakash respondent No. 2 inducted Jagdish Prasad respondent No. 3 as the sub-tenant in premises No. 73 and started charging Rs. 40 from Jagdish Prasad as monthly rent. Om Prakash continued to pay only Rs. 30 as monthly rent for both the premises to the petitioner. On this allegation, the petitioner filed suit for eviction, which was registered as J. S. C. C. Suit No. 70 of 1983.

3. The suit was contested by both the defendants, namely, Om Prakash and Jagdish Prasad separately. It was alleged by both of them that the suit had been filed in collusion with the other defendant. However, it was alleged by both the defendants that Jagdish Prasad was living in premises No. 73 as a tenant of the landlord and that there was no sub-tenancy.

4. Evidence was led by the parties and witnesses were also examined by all the parties. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 11-9-1987 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner holding that both the premises No. 68 and 73 had been let out to Vishnu Chand father of Om Prakash (respondent No. 2 ). There was no contract of tenancy between the landlord and Jagdish Prasad the subtenant. It was held that Jagdish Prasad was not living in the premises No. 73 with the consent of the landlord and was therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

5. Aggrieved by judgment of the Trial Court two revisions were filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 1887 Act) S. C. C. Revision No. 50 of 1987 was filed by Om Prakash and S. C. C. Revision No. 52 of 1987 was filed by Jagdish Prasad. The Revisional Court vide impugned judgment dated 30-3-1989 allowed both the revisions and dismissed the suit holding that Jagdish Prasad was entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Act as he had been living in the premises No. 73 with the consent of the landlord. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present writ petition has been filed.

6. I have heard Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arjun Singhal learned Counsel for the respondents.

7. Shri B. Dayal learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following questions in the present petition: - Firstly, that a finding with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant being a pure finding of fact, and the Trial Court having recorded a finding that there was no contract of tenancy between the plaintiff and Jagdish Prasad and after appreciation of evidence, the Revisional Court while exercising the power under Section 25 of 1887 Act exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the said finding. Secondly, it was urged that both the premises let out to Vishnu Chand was also affirmed by the Revisional Court and

therefore, till such time Jagdish Prasad established any relationship with the landlord, he could not be entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the