- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar in Suit No. 40 of 2005, Ram Bharose Lal and another v. Arban Kumar which was decreed in favour of the landlords-respondents and the judgment and order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahar in Revision No. 19 of 2008, Arban Kumar v. Ram Bharose Lal and another which was dismissed. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition are as follows: (i) A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the landlords-respondents against the petitioner-tenant in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar on the ground of sub-letting the shop in dispute to his brother Anil Kumar by the petitioner-tenant. The said suit was decreed vide the judgment and order dated 17.7.2008 wherein it was held that the shop in dispute was sub-let by the petitioner-tenant to his brother namely Anil Kumar. (ii) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.7.2008, the petitioner-tenant filed a revision before the District Judge, Bulandshahar. The revision was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar. The Revisional Court, vide the judgment and order dated 11.12.2009 dismissed the said revision and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, learned Counsel for the respondents-landlords and perused the material available on record.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has submitted that the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court are illegal and against the material available on record. He further submitted that the shop in dispute was in the joint tenancy of the petitioner-tenant as well as his brother Anil Kumar. This fact was also in the knowledge of the respondents-landlords that the brother of the petitioner-tenant namely Anil Kumar was carrying on his business from the shop in dispute but the respondents-landlords never raised any objection.;