JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - This revision arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant the tenant of the shop in dispute, and for arrears of rent. 2. The suit was filed in September, 1972. The suit for ejectment was based on the ground of tenant's default in clearing arrears of rent as contemplated by section 20(2)(a) and also on the ground of sub-letting contemplated by clause (e) of sub-section 2 of section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 3. The trial court held that both the grounds had been established and accordingly directed the ejectment of the defendant and also passed a decree for recovery of arrears of rent. On appeal the learned District judge held that the ejectment cannot be ordered on the first ground as in view of sub-section (4) section 20 of the Act but it could be decreed on the ground of sub-letting. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. The defendant has came up in revision. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding if, any, on the question of sub-tenancy is not sustainable in law. There is merit in this contention. The plaintiff had come to court on the allegation that the defendant had sub-let the accommodation to one Murat. The plaintiff in his statement had stated that the defendant corroborate him. The other evidence of the plaintiff and his witness Chhabinath on the point was to the effect that the tenant was not living in the accommodation. The defendant appeared in the witness box and denied the allegations of the plaintiff. His witness (D.W.2) Jagat stated that he was living along with the tenant Bankey Behari and was paying Rs. 7/- as rent to him. 5. The trial court held that the theory of sub-letting was established from the statement of this witness Jagat. It further held that it was immaterial whether it had been sublet to Murat or Jagat (D. W. 2). Jagat had not stated that he was in exclusive possession of the premises but had stated that he was living along with the defendant. He never stated that he was a sub-tenant. There was thus no evidence to establish that Jagat was a sub-tenant. Moreover, in the absence of a pleading there could neither be any evidence nor finding about Jagat's being a sub-tenant. He never stated that he was a sub-tenant. There was thus no evidence to establish that Jagat was a sub-tenant. Moreover, in the absence of a pleading there could neither be any evidence nor finding about Jagat's being a sub-tenant. There is no finding by the trial court as to who is the sub-tenant in the building. The plaintiff had pleaded that Murat was the sub-tenant, there was no pleading that Jagat was the sub-tenant There was no finding that Murt was the sub-tenant. Whatever may be the position emerging from the evidence, at least the trial court has not given a finding that Murat was a sub-tenant as pleaded by the plaintiff. It does not even name the person who was held by it to be the sub-tenant. The revisional court also did neither consider the evidence nor gave any finding as to who was deemed to be the sub-tenant probably because it has no power to decide questions of fact independently. The only thing the learned District Judge said was : "I am unable to accept that the finding recorded by the learned trial court is manifestly perverse, illegal and unjust. The finding is amply supported by evidence on record and I reject this contention." He has not even mentioned as to what the finding of the trial court was. In the absence of any finding that the building had been sub-let by the defendant, as alleged in the plaint, the decree for ejectment could not be passed. 6. When the revision came up for hearing the learned counsel for the respondent sought to support the decree on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent and the learned District Judge had taken an erroneous view about the interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act. Accordingly the matter was referred to a larger Bench. The Division Bench held that in the circumstances of the case sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act had been complied with and the defendant was entitled to the benefit thereof. 7. The question then in the revision remains only about the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned District Judge while deciding the revision. The Division Bench held that in the circumstances of the case sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act had been complied with and the defendant was entitled to the benefit thereof. 7. The question then in the revision remains only about the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned District Judge while deciding the revision. As already held the learned District Judge had committed an error of jurisdiction in dealing with the question that arose before him about the rights of the parties concerning the plea about sub-letting of the accommodation. The order of the learned District Judge cannot accordingly be sustained. He should have sent back the case to the trial court for decision of the issue on sub-letting as emerged from the pleadings in the case, particularly the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that in this view of the matter the case can be sent back directly to the trial court as ultimately it will be for the trial court to give the finding on question of sub-tenancy. As I am exercising revisional power under section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the judgment of the District Judge under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act it would be just and proper that the revisional court should not be by passed. The matter has got to go back to the District Judge who in his turn will decide the revision in accordance with law and pass such orders as may be necessary. 8. The revision is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned District Judge passed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is set aside and he is directed to re-register the revision to its original number and decide it in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. As the case has already become quite old, it would be proper for the learned District Judge to expedite the hearing of the revision before him.