- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Sunder Lal instituted Suit No. 151 of 1885, in the Court of J. S. C. C. , Gorakhpur praying for eviction of the petitioner Jhullan Bari from the accommodation in dispute and for recovery of Rs. 64. 21 as arrears of rent and also for pendente lite and future damages @ Rs. 61. 25 per month. The case of the plaintiff was that he was a karta of a joint Hindu family. He had let out the accommodation in dispute to one Om Prakash Mani Tripathi @ 6. 25 P who defaulted in payment of rent from November, 1984 to July, 1985 that when the landlord went to collect the arrears of rent, he found that instead of Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, the petitioner Jhullan Bari, was in wrongful occupation as sub-tenant of the premises in dispute. Consequently, the respondent No. 3, Sunder Lal determined the tenancy of Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, respondent No. 4 in the writ petition and served a composite notice dated 2. 8. 1985 demanding arrears of rent also. Om Prakas Mani Tripathi neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent. It also appears from the record that Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, the defendant No. 1, in the suit was served but he did not contest and accordingly to proceed ex parte. However, defendant No. 2 Jhullan Bari who is as alleged to be subtenant and petitioner in the writ petition, contested the case Inter alia that he was a tenant directly from the landlord respondent No. 3 Sundar Lal @ Rs. 6. 25 P. and was never subtenant of defendant No. 1 Om Prakash Mani Tripathi. It was also the case of petitioner that he was tenant of another separate one room from the respondent No. 3 Sundar Lal @ Rs. 4 per month as such, the suit was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE Court of J. S. C. C. by order dated 27. 10. 1986 held that plaintiff was a sole landlord and fcarta of joint Hindu family and has rightly filed suit. It was further held that Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, defendant No. 1, in the suit was tenant of Sunder Lal @ 6. 25 P. rent, he defaulted in payment of rent to the landlord for the month of July, 1985 and further that he had given his accommodation to the petitioner in the instant writ petition without the consent of the landlord and as such, the subtenancy was proved. THE suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28. 10. 1986, petitioner filed Revision No. 5 of 1986. The revisional court by its judgment and order dated 11. 2. 1988 upheld the findings of the trial court holding that the Court of J. S. C. C. has rightly believed the version of the landlord. It also noted that the defendant No. 2 had admitted that he was a tenant and had separate room from the plaintiff @ Rs. 4 per month and admitted the fact that Om Prakash Mani Tripathi, defendant No. 1 was the original tenant of the other room @ Rs. 6. 25 per month which he had vacated about three years before. Taking into note the admissions of the petitioner's the revisional court "disbelieved the case set up by the defendant that he was a direct tenant of the plaintiff landlord", hence dismissed the revision as having no force.;