K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS petition was heard and disposed of by an elaborate order dated 6 -1 -1984. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of Redar Singh Respondent for the recall of my order dated 6 -1 -84 on the ground that his counsel was not heard. After hearing parties I allowed the application and recalled my order dated 6 -1 -84.
(2.) HAVING heard Sri Prakash Gupta for the Petitioner and Sri Sripat Narain Singh and Smt. R.D. Gupta for the Respondents, I do not find any good ground to take a different view other than that taken by me in my order dated 6 -1 -84. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, dated 9 -4 -1980 setting aside the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, and dismissing the Petitioner's suit for ejectment of Respondent No. 3.
(3.) THE Petitioner is landlady of the building in dispute. She filed a suit for eviction of Vijai Kumar Singh, Respondent No. 3, on the ground that he had committed default in making payment and that he had illegally sub -let a portion of the building to Sardar Kedar Singh, Respondent No. 2. Vijai Kumar Singh, Respondent No. 3, did not contest the suit, instead he entered into a compromise with the landlady on 13 -11 -1978, according to which he accepted the liability of a sum of Rs. 750/ - as arrears of rent. Sardar Kedar Singh contested the suit on the ground that he was tenant in his own right and the landlady did not accept rent from him since long. He denied the status of a sub tenant. The learned Judge held that Sardar Kedar Singh was not a tenant in his own right as he had tailed to prove that any rent was paid by him to the landlady or that the landlady had ever agreed to his occupation of the building in dispute. The learned Judge held that Sardar Kedar Singh had been inducted into the building as a sub -tenant by Vijai Kumar Singh, the tenant, and as such Sardar Kedar Singh's possession was illegal and he was liable to be ejected. On these findings the learned Judge decreed the Petitioner's suit. Aggrieved, Sardar Kedar Singh filed a revision against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court. The revisional court by its order dated April 9, 1980, held that as Sardar Kedar Singh had been inducted as sub -tenant prior to the enforcement of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, his possession was not illegal and no decree for his ejectment could be passed against him as the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 did not apply to the case. Aggrieved, the landlady has filed the present petition challenging the order of the revisional court.;