JUDGMENT : S.D.Agarwala, J. 1. These are two connected petitions arising out of suit no. 221 of 1981 filed by Ghanshyam Das Gupta against Mahesh Chandra Varshney in the court of the Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages. 2. The property in dispute is house no. 43 situate at Mahabirganj, Aligarh. The Judge, Small Causes Court by his judgment dated 7-7-82 decreed the suit for ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 538.35 paise and pendentelite and future mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 35/- per mensum till the delivery of possession. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 7-7-1982 Mahesh Chandra Varshney filed a Civil Revision no. 97 of 1982 under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act in the court of the District Judge, Aligarh. The revision was dismissed by the Second Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 20th January, 1983. 4. Mahesh Chandra Varshney has, consequently, challenged the judgments dated 7-7-1982 and 20th January 1983 by means of a writ petition being writ no. 5498 of 1983. The landlord was also aggrieved by one of findings recorded in the judgment of the revisional court and consequently, the landlord Ghanshyam Das Gupta also filed a writ petition being writ no. 4488 of 1983 challenging that portion of that judgment. Since common question of fact and law arises in both the writ petitions, they are being decided by a common judgment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for Mahesh Chandra Varshney in both the petitions as well as learned counsel for Ghanshyam Das Gupta, the landlord. 6. AT the out set, it may be stated that on 23-11-1988 I had made certain observations in the order sheet on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the tenant that he is the tenant of the ground floor but I had directed the parties to ascertain the correct position. I had not by then heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case. This petition has been listed for hearing after the learned counsel have ascertained the correct position. Learned counsel for the tenant Mahesh Chandra Varshney in writ petition no. I had not by then heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case. This petition has been listed for hearing after the learned counsel have ascertained the correct position. Learned counsel for the tenant Mahesh Chandra Varshney in writ petition no. 5498 of 1983 has urged the following submissions :- (1) In view of the finding arrived at by the revisional court that Mahesh Chandra Varshney is the tenant of the ground floor, a decree in respect of the first floor could not have been passed by it and, consequently, the decree passed by both the Judge Small Causes Court as well as by the revisional court, are manifestly erroneous. (2) The finding of the Judge Small Causes Court in regard to the subtenancy is a finding perverse in law. Learned Counsel for Ghanshyam Das Gupta in his petition has urged that the revisional court has erred in observing that Mahesh Chandra Varshney is the tenant of the ground floor of the house in dispute. His case is that this question was not in issue at all before the Judge Small Causes Court and the Revisional Court has acted wholly without jurisdiction in going into this question and recording a finding to that effect. 7. Learned counsel for Mahesh Chandra Varshney has, however, urged in this petition that the petition is not maintainable as the decree passed in the said suit is in favour of Ghanshyam Das Gupta and he has no right to challenge the finding recorded in the revisional courts' order. 8. I will consider first the submissions made on behalf of Ghanshyam Das Gupta in writ no. 4488 of 1983 as that will have the effect on the submissions which has been made in writ no. 5498 of 1983. The revisional court by its judgment dated 20th January 1983 has confirmed the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court. The ultimate order is in favour of the landlord Ghanshyam Das Gupta. Since the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court is confirmed by the revisional court, the only remedy available to Ghanshyam Das Gupta, the decree holder was to challenge the finding by means of a writ petition in this court. There is no other alternative remedy available to the. decree holder. Since the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court is confirmed by the revisional court, the only remedy available to Ghanshyam Das Gupta, the decree holder was to challenge the finding by means of a writ petition in this court. There is no other alternative remedy available to the. decree holder. In my opinion, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a finding which has been recorded in the order of the revisional court. A party who is likely to be prejudiced by any finding which was not in issue between the parties in the trial court and recorded by a revisional court of a appellate court, it is open to him to challenge the same in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it is clear that the question as to which portion of the accommodation in dispute was in the tenancy of Mahesh Chandra Varshney was not in 'dispute at all. No issue was got framed nor any averment was made in the written statement about this by the defendants in the said suit. Since no issue has been got framed and no evidence was led to clarify the position, it was not open to the revisional court to have recorded a finding in regard to the identity of the building let out to Mahesh Chandra Varshney. ON a perusal of the judgment of the revisional Court, I find that the revisional court has observed that he is recording a finding in regard to the identity of the building let out only incidentally. The revisional court clearly acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in recording a finding incidentally without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff decree holder to lead evidence on the said question, as the said question was not in issue before the trial court. 10. In Laxmi Kishore v. H. P. Shukla, 1979 Allahabad Weekly Cases page 746, a Division Bench of this court has clearly laid down that the revisional court has no power to reassess or reappraise in order to determine a issue of fact. 10. In Laxmi Kishore v. H. P. Shukla, 1979 Allahabad Weekly Cases page 746, a Division Bench of this court has clearly laid down that the revisional court has no power to reassess or reappraise in order to determine a issue of fact. The revisional court has clearly acted without jurisdiction in going into the question as to which portion of the building let out, and, thereafter record its own findings, this too without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff decree holder to produce evidence in that regard. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the submission made on behalf of Ghanshyam Das Gupta in writ no. 4488 of 1983 is well founded. The observations made by the revisional court to the effect that Mahesh Chandra Varshney was the tenant of the ground floor of the house in dispute is a finding which is clearly vitiated in law and is, consequently, quashed. It shall not be given effect to. 11. I will now consider the submissions made on behalf of Mahesh Chandra Varshney in writ no. 5498 of 1983. 12. The first submission, as I have already observed above was that there was a finding to the effect that Mahesh Chandra Varshney was the tenant of the ground floor. I have already found that this finding could not have been recorded by the revisional court. In this view of the matter, the first submission of the learned counsel, in my opinion, does not have substance. In regard to the second submission, the building is governed by U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 20 of the Act enumerates the grounds on which a suit can be filed for eviction against a tenant of a building governed by the Act. The grounds mentioned in sub-clause (2) (e) of section 20 of the Act is relevant for the purposes of this petition, which reads as follows :- "(e) That the tenant has sub-let 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." Section 25 of the Act is also relevant, which reads as follows :- "25 (1) No tenant shall sub-let the whole of the building under his tenancy. (2) The tenant may with the permission in writing of the landlord and the District Magistrate sub-let a part of the building. Explanation : For the purposes of this section :- (i) Where the tenant ceases, within the meaning of clause (b) of subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 12, to occupy the building or any part thereof, he shall be deemed to have sub-let that building or part." 13. From a reading of section 25, it is clear that if a tenant ceases within the meaning of clause (b), sub-clause (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 12 to occupy a building, he shall be deemed to have sub-let that building. Section 12 reads as follows ;- "12. (1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if :- (a) ............ (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or (c) ............." Section 25 read with section 12 (1) (b) makes it clear that if a tenant allows the property let out to him to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family then he shall be deemed to have sub-let that building. If that be so, clearly a ground of eviction is made out under section 20 sub-clause (2) (e) of the Act. 14. In the instant case, the Judge Small Causes Court has recorded a categorical finding that the portion under tenancy was allowed to be occupied by one Hori Lal. Horilal is, admittedly, not a member of the family of the tenant. Consequently, in terms of section 12 (1) (b), the tenant shall be ceased to occupy the building and it will be a clear case of sub-tenancy as contemplated by section 20 (2) (e) of the Act. IN the circumstances, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Judge Small Causes Court that the tenanted property had been sub-let by the tenant. Learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently urged that the finding recorded in regard to the sub-tenancy is a finding perverse in law. I have examined the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court and learned counsel has taken me through the various evidence on record. Learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently urged that the finding recorded in regard to the sub-tenancy is a finding perverse in law. I have examined the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court and learned counsel has taken me through the various evidence on record. In my opinion, the finding recorded by the Judge Small Causes Court is not perverse at all. It is a finding based on assessment and appraisal of the evidence on record This finding cannot, possibly be disturbed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The revisional court has, also rightly observed that the finding of fact cannot be disturbed by it in the revisional jurisdiction under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 15. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the second submission made by learned counsel for the tenant. 16. In the result the, writ no. 4488 of 1983 is allowed to the extent that the finding recorded to the effect that the property let out to Mahesh Chandra Varshney was a ground floor is set aside. The rest of the judgment and decree of the revisional court shall stand. The writ no. 5498 of 1983 is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. The interim order dated 28th April 1983, is, hereby vacated.