N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the landlord of a shop of which Sri Nanak Chand, respondent No. 3, is the tenant. A suit being Suit No. 443 of 1970 was instituted by the petitioner against respondent No. 3 for his ejectment from the said shop on the ground that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent as also on the ground that he had sublet portions of the shop in question to various persons. A decree for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits was also prayed for. The suit was contested by respondent No. 3, inter aiia, on the grounds that he was not a defaulter in payment of rent and that he had never sub-let any portion of the shop. According to the said respondent, the persons, who were alleged by the petitioner to be the sub-tenants, were indeed his partners in the business carried on by him. The Judge Small Cause Court, after hearing the parties and on the basis of the evidence produced by them, recorded a finding against the petitioner so far as his plea that respondent No. 3 was a defaulter in payment of rent is concerned. On the question of sub-tenancy, however, the Judge Small Cause Court, respondent No. 2, held in favour of the petitioner and on the finding that respondent No. 3 had sub-let portions of the shop in question to various persons, inter alia, decreed the suit for ejectment on 28th April, 1977. Aggrieved by the decree, respondent No. 3 preferred a revision before the District Judge under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This Revision was allowed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 1, on 9th February, 1979. It is this order of respondent No. 1 which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by respondent No. 2, namely, Judge Small Cause Court. Bulandshahr. that respondent No. 3 had sub-let portions of the shop to various persons was essentially a finding of fact and could not be reversed by respondent No. 1 in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
(3.) For respondent No. 3, on the other hand, it has been urged by his counsel that the finding of respondent No. 2 relied on by counsel for the petitioner was not a valid finding in the eye of law and consequently no exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by respondent No. 1.;