ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings in Suit No. 809 of 1976 filed by opposite party No. 3 Smt. Heera Devi claiming herself to be the owner and landlady of the said premises against the petitioner, Laxmi Narain Pathak, for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages on the ground that the petitioner had without the consent, express or implied of opposite party No. 3, or her predecessor-in-interest had sublet the second floor of the house which was part of his tenancy to Satya Prakash Misra, opposite party No. 4, and is realising Rs. 60/- per mensem as rent from him illegally. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he never sublet any part of the premises nor could he sublet the same as the second floor was already occupied when his tenancy began. The petitioner further alleged that originally one Ram Manorath was the owner of the suit premises. He had let out a portion of house No. 113, Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad consisting of ground floor, first floor and a room in the second floor in the year 1944. In para 11A of the written statement it was specifically averred that house No. 113, Vivekanand Marg is a big three storeyed building. In the front portion of the building are two shops in occupation of the tenants. The petitioner is occupying first floor and a portion on the second and ground floor. The rest of the building on the ground floor and the second floor comprising of self-contained units were tenanted to various persons and let out to various tenants by the previous owner since 1944. In fact the defence of the petitioner was that prior to his coming in possession of the property in dispute, Satya Prasad Misra was already in occupation of the portion alleged to have been sublet by the petitioner. 2. The Judge, Small Causes held that a portion of the premises had been sublet by the petitioner to Satya Prasad Misra and, therefore, the petitioner was liable for ejectment. The suit was accordingly decreed on 12th May, 1978. The judgment dated 12th May, 1978 was challenged in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the petitioner. The District Judge, Allahabad, dismissed the revision on 26th April. 1979. The suit was accordingly decreed on 12th May, 1978. The judgment dated 12th May, 1978 was challenged in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act by the petitioner. The District Judge, Allahabad, dismissed the revision on 26th April. 1979. So far as the finding in regard to subletting was concerned the only observation which has been made by the revisional court is as follows : "An argument was also addressed about subletting and it was reiterated that the defendant revisionist had not sublet the premises to Satya Prasad. This point was considered by the learned Judge, Small Causes under Issue No. 1 and relying on the admission of the revisionist that he was the tenant of the entire first floor and second floor this contention was negatived. This finding of sub-tenancy is a finding of fact and is based on legal evidence and consequently cannot be disturbed in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act." 3. The judgment dated 26th April, 1979 has been challenged by means of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is no evidence to hold that the petitioner had sublet the premises to Satya Prasad Misra hence the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes and affirmed by the revisional court is a finding based on no evidence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There are only two pieces of evidence on the question of subletting. One is the statement of Ram Sajiwan Misra, who is related to Smt. Heera Devi and is her pairokar. The only statement given by him in relation to subletting is as follows: "Mudalaya No. 1 muddaiya ke kirayedar bain, first wa second floor per defendant No. 2 ko sublet kar diya hai ruppiya 65 pratimah per............." In cross-examination it was further stated by him as follows : "D. 1 bahut puraney kirayedar hain. Mai nahin janta. D. 1 ne mere samney D. 2 ko sublet nahin kiya. Satya Prasad Misra S.T. (sub-tenant) ne bataya tha." 6. There is one documentary evidence which is Ext. 2 and is a compromise entered into between the heirs of Ram Manorath and the petitioner. This document is attached as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Mai nahin janta. D. 1 ne mere samney D. 2 ko sublet nahin kiya. Satya Prasad Misra S.T. (sub-tenant) ne bataya tha." 6. There is one documentary evidence which is Ext. 2 and is a compromise entered into between the heirs of Ram Manorath and the petitioner. This document is attached as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on paragraph 3 of the said compromise, which is as follows: "That the defendant has been the tenant of the above portion i.e. 1st and 2nd floor of the house in dispute at the rate of Rs. 25.50 p. and he will continue to remain in occupation as such." 7. The Judge, Small Causes as well as the revisional court has treated this para 3 to be an admission that the entire second floor was under the tenancy of the petitioner. On a plain reading of para 3 it is clear that the word 'entire' is not there. In fact the word 'second floor' is preceded by the word 'portion' from which it is clear that the compromise related only to a portion of the first and the second floor. The Judge, Small Causes has clearly misread this compromise and particularly para 3 quoted above. 8. The specific case of the petitioner was that before he became the tenant of the premises the portion of the second floor was occupied by Satya Prasad Misra. This question has not been decided by either court. If a person is already in occupation before the accommodation is rented, to a tenant it cannot possibly be said that the tenant had sublet the portion to the alleged sub-tenant. There is no evidence to establish on the record that the petitioner had sublet the premises to opposite party No. 4 Satya Prasad Misra. 9. In Lakshmi Nandan v. Triloki Nath, 1979 (5) All LR 142: (1979 All LJ 201), a learned single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider what are the essential circumstances required to be proved by the plaintiff before it could be said that the tenant had sublet the premises. 9. In Lakshmi Nandan v. Triloki Nath, 1979 (5) All LR 142: (1979 All LJ 201), a learned single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider what are the essential circumstances required to be proved by the plaintiff before it could be said that the tenant had sublet the premises. It was observed as follows: "The plaintiff has to bring in evidence which would furnish material from which a legitimate inference with certainty could be drawn that there was a relationship of lessor and lessee between the chief tenant and some other person found in possession of the premises let out. It is true that it is not necessary to establish a contract of sub-tenancy as held by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ram Bharose Ajeet Kumar ( AIR 1952 All 806 ) : (1952 All LJ 280), yet it is necessary that some circumstances must be found by the court from the fact of exclusive possession of the alleged sub-tenant from which the relationship of lessor and lessee between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant can be said to be established to a reasonable extent." 10. In the instant case it has not been established that any rent was being paid by opposite party No. 4 to the petitioner because the only evidence was of Ram Sajiwan Misra, who has clearly admitted in cross-examination that the petitioner did not sublet the premises in his presence. No receipt has been filed in regard to the rate of rent. There is no evidence that exclusive possession was given by petitioner to opposite party No. 4. There is no other circumstance stated either in the plaint or in the evidence to bring out as to why it should be held that the petitioner had sublet the premises to opposite party No. 4 particularly when the case of the petitioner was that opposite party No. 4 had been the tenant of the premises prior to the petitioner coming in as a tenant of the other portion of the building. In my opinion there is no evidence at all on the record to establish subletting on the part of the petitioner to opposite party No. 4. The finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes as well as by the revisional court is based on no evidence and is accordingly wholly illegal. 11. In my opinion there is no evidence at all on the record to establish subletting on the part of the petitioner to opposite party No. 4. The finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes as well as by the revisional court is based on no evidence and is accordingly wholly illegal. 11. In the result the petition is allowed, the ejectment decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes as well as by the revisional court is set aside. The rest of the decree shall, however, stand. In the circumstances parties shall bear their own costs.