JUDGMENT : K.N. Singh, J. This petition was heard and disposed of by an elaborate order dated 6-1-1984. Thereafter an application was made on behalf of Redar Singh Respondent for the recall of my order dated 6-1-84 on the ground that his counsel was not heard. After hearing parties I allowed the application and recalled my order dated 6-1-84. 2. Having heard Sri Prakash Gupta for the Petitioner and Sri Sripat Narain Singh and Smt. R.D. Gupta for the Respondents, I do not find any good ground to take a different view other than that taken by me in my order dated 6-1-84. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, dated 9-4-1980 setting aside the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, and dismissing the Petitioner's suit for ejectment of Respondent No. 3. 4. The Petitioner is landlady of the building in dispute. She filed a suit for eviction of Vijai Kumar Singh, Respondent No. 3, on the ground that he had committed default in making payment and that he had illegally sub-let a portion of the building to Sardar Kedar Singh, Respondent No. 2. Vijai Kumar Singh, Respondent No. 3, did not contest the suit, instead he entered into a compromise with the landlady on 13-11-1978, according to which he accepted the liability of a sum of Rs. 750/- as arrears of rent. Sardar Kedar Singh contested the suit on the ground that he was tenant in his own right and the landlady did not accept rent from him since long. He denied the status of a sub tenant. The learned Judge held that Sardar Kedar Singh was not a tenant in his own right as he had tailed to prove that any rent was paid by him to the landlady or that the landlady had ever agreed to his occupation of the building in dispute. The learned Judge held that Sardar Kedar Singh had been inducted into the building as a sub-tenant by Vijai Kumar Singh, the tenant, and as such Sardar Kedar Singh's possession was illegal and he was liable to be ejected. On these findings the learned Judge decreed the Petitioner's suit. Aggrieved, Sardar Kedar Singh filed a revision against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court. On these findings the learned Judge decreed the Petitioner's suit. Aggrieved, Sardar Kedar Singh filed a revision against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court. The revisional court by its order dated April 9, 1980, held that as Sardar Kedar Singh had been inducted as sub-tenant prior to the enforcement of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, his possession was not illegal and no decree for his ejectment could be passed against him as the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 did not apply to the case. Aggrieved, the landlady has filed the present petition challenging the order of the revisional court. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the view taken by the revisional court that the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 did not apply to a sub-letting effected prior to the enforcement of the Act is erroneous. I find merit in the contention. u/s 20(2)(e) of the Act a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building Is maintainable on the ground 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. The expression "has sub-let" includes a sub-letting prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act. Moreover, Clause (e) itself makes it amply clear that even if the sub-letting is done under the old Act, the sub-letting is permissible. This view is supported by two decisions of this Court in Mohd. Yaqoob Khan Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, AIR 1977 All 93 and Shambhu Nath Tandon Vs. IX Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge and Others, (1976) AWC 801. The view taken in these two authorities was affirmed by a Full Bench In Smt. Keshar Bai and Another Vs. The District Judge and Others, (1980) AWC 385. The view taken by the revisional court is contrary to the aforesaid decisions. 6. The learned Judge of the revisional court referred to a number of authorities of this Court on the question that Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was not retrospective. The District Judge and Others, (1980) AWC 385. The view taken by the revisional court is contrary to the aforesaid decisions. 6. The learned Judge of the revisional court referred to a number of authorities of this Court on the question that Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was not retrospective. The learned Judge, however, failed to notice the statutory provisions contained in Section 20(2)(e) of the Act (?) clearly provide that a suit for ejectment of a tenant is maintainable on the ground of sub-letting irrespective of the fact that sub-letting was done prior to the enforcement of the 1972 Act. As already noted, the trial court had recorded finding on appraisal of evidence on record that Sardar Kedar Singh was a sub-tenant and he had failed to prove the case set up by him that he was a tenant in his own right. That finding was not disturbed by the revisional court and as such the order of the trial court decreeing the Petitioner's suit is liable to be restored. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents urged that Kedar Singh had entered into a partnership deed with Vijai Kumar Singh for carrying on business with the knowledge and permission of the landlady and as such Kedar Singh himself became tenant in his own right and as Vijai Kumar Singh walked out of the partnership, Kedar Singh continued to occupy the premises as tenant. He could not, therefore, be ejected on the ground of alleged sub-tenancy. This submission cannot be accepted as neither the trial court nor the revisional court has recorded any finding that the partnership under which Kedar Singh was inducted as a tenant of the premises in dispute had been entered into with the permission and knowledge of the landlady. In the absence of permission from the landlady Vijai Kumar Singh, the original tenant had no authority in law to induct Kedar Singh. Kedar Singh would not derive any legal title of a tenant merely on the basis of the partnership deed which had been entered into between him and Vijai Kumar Singh. Moreover, the trial Court recorded a finding that the Respondents had committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than four months and on that ground also the landlady's suit for Respondents' ejectment was liable to be decreed. Moreover, the trial Court recorded a finding that the Respondents had committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than four months and on that ground also the landlady's suit for Respondents' ejectment was liable to be decreed. This finding was not set aside by the revisional court. In my opinion the revisional court committed apparent error of law in interfering with the trial Court's order. 8. In the result the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order of the revisional court dated 9-4-1980 is quashed. The Petitioner is entitled to her costs.