ORDER K.C. Agarwal, J. - These three connected revisions arise from the judgment of the Judge Small Causes, Meerut, dated 31st October, 1979 deciding suit Nos. 99 of 1977 and 59 of 1978. All of these cases relate to one and the same property and the plaintiff in both the cases is the same. 2. Suit No. 99 of 1977 had been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of rent claiming that the rent was Rs. 310/- per month. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant and the allegation that the rent was Rs. 310/- was denied. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed, amongst others, the following issues in suit No. 99 of 1977:- 1. What is the rate of rent, whether Rs. 310/- a month as claimed by the plaintiff or Rs. 200/- a month as pleaded by the defendant? Effect, in either case? 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 5735/- remitted by the defendant and accepted by the plaintiff was in full and final settlement of the plaintiff's claim as pleaded by the defendant? If so, its effect? 3. Plaintiff's relief, if any? 5. Suit No. 59 of 78 was filed by the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant on two grounds viz., default in payment of arrears of rent and illegal subletting. The material issues of suit No. 59 of 78 are as under:- 1. Whether defendant No. 2 is a subtenant as alleged by the plaintiff? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 alone is the tenant as alleged by the plaintiff or the firm M/s. Bajaja Handloom Factory is the tenant as pleaded by the defendant? Effect in either case? 3. What is the rate of rent, whether Rs. 310/- a month as pleaded by the defendant? Effect, in either case? 4. Whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent as alleged by the plaintiff? If so, its effect? 6. The learned Judge Small Causes took up issue No. 1 of suit No. 99 of 77 and issue No. 4 of suit No. 59 of 78 together. These issues were with respect to the rate of rent at which the premises had been let out. After considering evidence, the Learned Judge Small Causes held that the rate of rent for the shop in question was Rs. 200/-. These issues were with respect to the rate of rent at which the premises had been let out. After considering evidence, the Learned Judge Small Causes held that the rate of rent for the shop in question was Rs. 200/-. Issue No. 7 (4 ?) of suit No. 59 of 78 was whether the defendant committed default in payment of rent. The Judge Small Causes held that the rent due from the defendant to the plaintiff was Rs. 5800/- with effect from January, 1976 to 31st May, 1978. But the defendant had only tendered Rs. 5600/- and as he did not send rent for one month, he was a defaulter. Thereafter, the Judge Small Causes decided issues 2 and 3 of suit No. 59 of 78 which were to the effect as to whether the defendant No. 2 was a sub-tenant of defendant No. 1. The Judge Small Causes decided the said issue in affirmative and held that defendant No. 2 was a subtenant of defendant No. 1 and as such, the defendants were liable to eviction. 7. From the facts stated above, it would be found that the following two points which are crucial to the decision of this revision given against the defendants were (1) the defendant was guilty of non-payment of rent and (2) illegal subletting. The point, decided in favour of defendant No. 1, however, was about the rate of rent. The plaintiff had claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 310/- per month, the finding, however, was that the rent payable was Rs. 200/- per month. 8. On these findings, suit No. 99 of 77 was disposed of as fully satisfied whereas suit No. 59 of 78 was decreed and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and further for ejectment. Being aggrieved, the defendants filed revision No. 1585 of 1979 whereas the two connected revisions 84 and 85 of 80 had been preferred by the plaintiff. 9. The grievance of the plaintiff in these revisions was about the rate of rent. The plaintiff had to file two revisions against the decree of the Judge Small Causes given in the two suits 59 of 78 and 99 of 77 holding that the rent payable was at the rate of Rs. 200/- and not Rs. 310/-. 10. 9. The grievance of the plaintiff in these revisions was about the rate of rent. The plaintiff had to file two revisions against the decree of the Judge Small Causes given in the two suits 59 of 78 and 99 of 77 holding that the rent payable was at the rate of Rs. 200/- and not Rs. 310/-. 10. Before dealing with the main revision No. 1585 of 79 filed by the defendants, I wish to dispose of the revisions filed by the plaintiff which would not occupy any space. The main question in these two revisions was about the rate of rent at which the premises was let out to defendant No. 1. The Judge Small Causes considered the evidence and found from the testimony of witnesses as well as from the Municipal assessment (Ex. A-1) that the monthly rent of the shop was Rs. 200/-. Nothing could be pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff to show that the evidence was erroneous. 11. In revision No. 1585 of 79, three points were urged by the learned counsel. These points were (1) that the defendant No. 1 was not a defaulter, (2) that there was no illegal subletting and (3) the tenancy of defendant No. 2 having been regularised under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the decree for eviction was illegal. 12. So far as the first point relating to default is concerned, the argument was that defendant No. 1 was not in arrears of rent with respect to the month of January, 1976. After having perused the judgment of the Judge Small Causes, I am unable to uphold the above submission. The Judge Small Causes dealt with the evidence of the parties elaborately and repelled the argument that defendant No. 1 had paid the rent of the said month. Having realised that the question of non-payment of rent was of fact, counsel for the defendant No. 1 could not make any submission against it. Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, this Court has limited jurisdiction to find whether the judgment given is in accordance with law. High Court has no power to reappraise evidence and to arrive at the finding different to that of the court below. Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, this Court has limited jurisdiction to find whether the judgment given is in accordance with law. High Court has no power to reappraise evidence and to arrive at the finding different to that of the court below. The Small Cause Court, Judge found the statement of the plaintiff reliable and trustworthy which was not controverted from the side of the defendants. It found that even the defendants did not state that the rent was due only since February, 1976. This finding is a finding of fact. Defendant No. 1 was, thus, rightly held to be a defaulter. 13. The second question was of subletting. According to the plaintiff, the property in question was taken on rent from in by Hansraj, defendant No. 1. He also stated that his tenancy came into existence in May, 1973. The defendant No. 1, however, denied that the contract of tenancy was entered into by him and that it came into existence in May, 1973. According to defendant No. 1, the tenancy commenced in January, 1972 through oral contract, which had been finalised in the last week of December, 1972. He further stated that both the defendants joined in taking the property in question on rent from the plaintiff as partners. 13A. The Judge Small Causes believed the statement of the plaintiff, who stated that the tenancy commenced in May, 1973. His statement was corroborated by the partnership deed marked Ex. 5/A-17 which came into existence on 8th September, 1973. From this document it would appear that defendant No. 2 joined defendant No. 1 as partner in the business in question since August 15,1973. There was no recital in this document to show that this partnership would be deemed to have come into existence on January 1, 1972. 14. From the above finding it would follow that Hansraj took defendant No. 2 as a partner in the business in September, 1973. 15. The question that now may be examined is whether taking of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 in September, 1973 amounted to subletting. Under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947, clause (3) provided that the tenant shall be liable to eviction if he had on or after the 1st day of October, 1946, sublet the whole or any portion of the accommodation without permission of the landlord. Under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947, clause (3) provided that the tenant shall be liable to eviction if he had on or after the 1st day of October, 1946, sublet the whole or any portion of the accommodation without permission of the landlord. The controversy which arose under the old act was whether taking of a person as a partner in the business by a tenant amounted to subletting. Opinion on this point was divergent. To set at rest the controversy the legislature made a different approach to the provision. Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 lays down that no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building excepting as provided by sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) gives the various grounds on which the tenant can be evicted. Clause (e) of subsection (2) reads as under :- "That the tenant has sublet, in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act, the whole or any part of the building." 16. This takes us to Section 25 of the said Act. Section 25 prohibits sub lettings. Explanation added to this section provides that where the tenant ceases, within the meaning of clause (b) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 12, to occupy the building or any part thereof he shall be deemed to have sublet that building or part. Thus, it would be found that Section 25 creates a fiction and provides that in all those cases covered by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 there could be deemed to be illegal subletting. 17. For our purpose, sub-section (2) of Section 12 which provides that in the case of non-residential buildings where a tenant carried on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. 18. Reading all these provisions together, no doubt is left that accepting a partner after the enforcement of this Act in the business would amount to subletting. In the instant case, the finding recorded by the court below was that defendant No. 2 had been admitted by defendant No. 1 as a partner. 18. Reading all these provisions together, no doubt is left that accepting a partner after the enforcement of this Act in the business would amount to subletting. In the instant case, the finding recorded by the court below was that defendant No. 2 had been admitted by defendant No. 1 as a partner. This would mean that he had been illegally admitted and, as such, the bar imposed for eviction of a tenant by sub-section (1) of Section 20 was removed. 19. Counsel next urged that since the tenancy of defendant No. 2 had been regularised by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by making an order under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 72, the Possession of defendant No. 2 could not be held to be unauthorised or illegal. The submission made is not correct. For Section 14 what was necessary was to establish that possession of defendant No. 2 was with the consent of the plaintiff, i.e. the landlord. No evidence was led on that point. As a matter of fact the defendant did not even plead that defendant No. 2 had been given possession with the consent of the landlord. Section 14, therefore, did not apply. Merely passing of an order by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer regularising the tenancy could not be of any avail to the defendants in as much as Section 14 does not contemplate of a proceeding in which any order could be passed. It is a purely declaratory provision which treats the legal possession if certain factual recitals are made out. It does not confer jurisdiction either on the District Magistrate or even the Prescribed Authority to entertain proceedings for the purpose of merely making a declaration under Section 14. Any person may claim its benefit in appropriate proceedings by way of defence or otherwise. (See Mirza Sami Ullah Baig v. District Magistrate Lucknow, 1980 All WC 430). The plea of regularisation was taken which was repelled by the Division Bench holding that the District Magistrate had no power to pass any order under the said provision. Therefore, in the absence of proof of prerequisites provided by Section 14, the person obtaining the order under Section 14 would not be saved from eviction. 20. From what I have said above, I find that the plaintiff succeeded in establishing the grounds taken in the plaint. Therefore, in the absence of proof of prerequisites provided by Section 14, the person obtaining the order under Section 14 would not be saved from eviction. 20. From what I have said above, I find that the plaintiff succeeded in establishing the grounds taken in the plaint. The findings given by the Judge Small Causes were findings of fact. This Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the said finding. Counsel for the defendants realised the aforesaid difficulty and could not successfully assert that the judgment of the court below was erroneous. 21. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. The defendants 1 and 2 are granted three month's time to vacate the premises.