R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by defendants 1 to 3, against the order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Panipat, dated August 28, 1978.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants for the possession of shop No 536 and for recovery of Rs. 900/ - as compensation for its use and occupation, from January 26, 1966 Later he found defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the occupation of the said shop from which he concluded the defendant No. 4 sublet the shop to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. A notice was given by him to the defendants in reply to which defendant Nos. 1 and 2 said that they had taken the shop on rent directly from the plaintiff, as tenants, and as such they are not liable to ejectment on the allegations of the plaintiff. Ha further pleaded that in view of the standi taken by the defendants, the only inference was that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were in illegal possession of the shop. He, therefore, instituted a suit for possession on the basis of title.
(3.) In the written statement, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit and Inter alia pleaded that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were tenants under the plaintiff and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.;