ORDER S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - The petitioner was defendant No. 2 in a suit filed by the opposite party No. 1 for eviction for her tenant Amar Nath Singh (opposite party No. 2) on the ground that he had sublet the premises in question to the petitioner. The suit was decreed by the trial Court with the finding that Amar Nath Singh (opposite party No. 2) had not only defaulted in payment of rent but had also sublet the accommodation in question to the petitioner. The trial Court did not accept the case of the defendant that the petitioner was a licensee. The finding recorded was that he was a sub-tenant. The judgment passed by the trial Court was challenged in revision which was dismissed on 23rd August, 1978. The finding of the trial Court on the question of default said to have been committed by opposite party No. 2 in payment of rent was set aside but its finding with regard to the question of sub-tenancy was upheld. The opposite party No. 2 challenged the judgment passed by the Courts below in Writ Petition No. 3435 of 1979 and the petitioner has filed the present writ petition separately against the same judgments. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The finding that petitioner was a sub- tenant and not a licencee of Amar Nath Singh is a finding of fact recorded concurrently by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge and cannot be assailed in the present petition. 4. Writ Petn, No. 3435 of 1979, Amar Nath Singh v. Smt. Purna Devi, which was filed by opposite party No. 2 in his capacity as a tenant- in-chief of the accommodation in question, has since been dismissed by this court on 4-5- 81 and the findings recorded by the Courts below including the findings that petitioner was the sub-tenant have not been disturbed. In view of the fact that the petitioner claims to be in possession of the accommodation in question through Amar Nath Singh against whom the decree for eviction has become final, the present petition at the instance of the petitioner (sub-tenant) who was also a party in earlier Writ Petn. No. 3435 of 1979 is not maintainable. 5. In view of the fact that the petitioner claims to be in possession of the accommodation in question through Amar Nath Singh against whom the decree for eviction has become final, the present petition at the instance of the petitioner (sub-tenant) who was also a party in earlier Writ Petn. No. 3435 of 1979 is not maintainable. 5. It is well settled that where the tenancy of the tenant-in-chief is terminated, the tenancy of the sub-tenant also comes to an end (See Timmappa Ruppaya v. Rama Venkanna Naik, (1897) ILR 21 Bom 311; and Sheikh Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra, AIR 1932 Cal 241 (in which it has also been held that an ejectment decree passed against a tenant is binding on the sub-tenant and he can be evicted in execution of that decree). 6. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala, AIR 1953 SC 73 has observed as under : "........ Under the ordinary law a decree for possession passed against a tenant in a suit for ejectment is binding on a person claiming title under, or through that tenant and is executable against such person whether or not he was or was not a party to the suit. The non-joinder of such a person does not render the decree any the less binding on him. It is in this sense, therefore, that he is not a necessary party to an ejectment suit against the tenant......." 7. That being so, the petitioner, who claims through opposite party No. 2 against. whom, as observed earlier, a decree for eviction has become final, has to be evicted from the premises in question. This is also the legislative intention, as any violation of the statutory prohibition against sub-letting contained in U.P. Act XIII of 1972 which has replaced U.P. Act No. III of 1947 containing similar prohibition, has to result in the eviction of the tenant, and, with him, the sub-tenant. 8. I accordingly find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a practising advocate at Barabanki his request for some time being allowed to him to vacate the premises in question is accepted. 8. I accordingly find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs. In view of the fact that the petitioner is a practising advocate at Barabanki his request for some time being allowed to him to vacate the premises in question is accepted. He is allowed five months' time and is directed to vacate the premises on the expiry of five months from today and hand over possession of the premises in question to opposite party No. 1.