- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. K. Jain, Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that S. C. C. Suit No. 135 of 1994 was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the petitioner and one Sri Kallu Mal respondent No. 7 for their eviction from the shop, in dispute. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was tenant of the shop, in dispute, on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- with house tax and water charge @ Rs. 20/- per month had inducted Sri Kallu Mal as sub- tenant and was not regularly making payment of rent to the landlords. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations. He disputed the allegation of sub-tenancy and non payment of rent. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21-5-1998. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred S. C. C Revision No. R. C. C. Revision No. 21 of 1998 which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10-5-2001 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
(3.) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner has come up before this Court by means of the instant writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner contended that on the basis of evidence led before the trial Court, no reasonable man could come to the conclusion that it was a case of sub-letting. He submits that in fact, Sri Kallu Mal-respondent No. 7 was engaged as servant by the petitioner and he was not a sub-tenant. Sri Kallu Mal was never found in exclusive possession of the disputed shop.;