JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - In the present petition, the tenant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.3.1986 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Varanasi, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and the order dated 25.8.1989 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Varanasi dismissing the revision filed by the defendant-tenant. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting against the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the disputed shop was allotted to Sri Krishna Kumar on 24.11.1975 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and an agreement of tenancy was also executed between the previous owner Panchayati Akhara Maha Nirvan, through its Secretary on 24.11.1975. The defendant No. 1 Krishna Kumar had paid rent of the disputed shop to its previous owner upto September, 1981 and receipts were issued in his name : The building was purchased by respondents 3 to 5 on 5.10.1981 and they started realising the rent from defendant No. 2 Bal Krishna who was paying rent on behalf of the defendant No. 1 in capacity of the Manager. After some time when the plaintiff received knowledge of the illegal occupation of defendant No. 2 they filed the present suit. It was also alleged that the defendant No. 2 is in exclusive possession of the shop and paid consideration of Rs. 10,000/- to defendant No. 1 in obtaining possession of the disputed shop. 3. The defendant No. 2 contested the case by filing written statement and denied that he occupied the shop as sub-tenant. According to the defendant No. 2, he was in occupation from the time of the previous owners and was paying the rent in his independent capacity and he continued to pay rent to the present owners independently as tenant who after recognising him as their tenant have issued rent receipts in his name. The defendant No. 2 denied the payment of any consideration to defendant No. 1 and claimed to be the tenant of the disputed shop in his individual rights. 4. The Judge, Small Causes Court, after examining the entire material on record held that the defendant No. 2 always demonstrated to be paying rent on behalf of defendant No. 1 and claimed to be his Manager. There is nothing to indicate that any fresh contract of tenancy or relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the present landlord and defendant No. 2. There is nothing to indicate that any fresh contract of tenancy or relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the present landlord and defendant No. 2. The possession of defendant No. 2 was held to be unauthorised as sub-tenant without the permission of the landlord and thus the decree for eviction against him was passed. It was also held that consideration of Rs. 10,000/- passed to defendant No. 1 and the tenancy of defendant No. 2 cannot be treated to be regularised. These findings have also been upheld by the revisional Court in confirming the decree for ejectment. According to the learned Eighth Additional District Judge, defendant No. 2 was in exclusive possession although the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the shop in whose favour the allotment order stood. The defendant No. 2 did not attain independent status as of tenant and his possession was that of a sub-tenant liable to ejectment. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of contentions. The report of the Rent Control Inspector dated 25.7.1981 containing the statement of defendant No. 2 being paper No. 20C cannot be considered in the present proceedings. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the admission made by defendant No. 2 as Manager of defendant No. 1 has been taken as a circumstances to establish that his possession was through the tenant and the payment of rent was only in the capacity as Manager on behalf of defendant No. 1 cannot be relied for the purposes that the rent was not paid independently but on behalf of defendant No. 1. 6. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the landlord has issued receipts in favour of defendant No. 2 treating him to be the tenant would establish that he was treated as tenant of the disputed accommodation independently and the rent receipts executed in his name cannot be treated as a payment on behalf of defendant No. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner alleged that in case the petitioner is liable to establish that he was the tenant in his own rights and he was recognised by the landlord in the same capacity, the subsequent false case set up by the landlord of sub-letting cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner alleged that in case the petitioner is liable to establish that he was the tenant in his own rights and he was recognised by the landlord in the same capacity, the subsequent false case set up by the landlord of sub-letting cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the respondent tried to justify the issuance of receipt in the name of defendant No. 2 as tenant on the reasoning given by the Courts below. 7. I have carefully seen both the order and material on the record and in my opinion, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the landlord treated the petitioner as independent tenant has substantial force. It is no doubt correct that the rent receipts issued by the previous owners upto 1981 were in the name of Krishna Kumar. However, it cannot be disputed that later on the rent receipts in respect of the disputed shop were issued by the present landlord only in the name of defendant No. 2 Bal Krishna as tenant. These receipts are paper Nos. 38-C to 60-C which were on record and the plaintiff has admitted the issuing of these receipts. The explanation of the plaintiff that these receipts were issued in the name of defendant No. 2 because he represented himself to be the Manager of defendant No. 1 cannot be accepted. It is also incorrect to hold that there was no document in favour of defendant No. 2 to establish the contract of tenancy or relationship of landlord and tenant. In my opinion, in absence of any rent lease or rent note, the rent receipts which demonstrate the monthly payment of rent establish the month to month tenancy in favour of a person. It is surprising that for years together the landlord would continuously issue receipts only and exclusively in the name of the defendant No. 2 Bal Krishna mentioning him as tenant of the disputed shop. There appears to be no justification as to why these rent receipts were not issued as Manager of defendant No. 1 or in favour of defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2. The acceptance of rent from Bal Krishna would amount to treating him as the tenant of the disputed premises. There appears to be no justification as to why these rent receipts were not issued as Manager of defendant No. 1 or in favour of defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2. The acceptance of rent from Bal Krishna would amount to treating him as the tenant of the disputed premises. The explanation given and which has been found convincing by the two Courts below cannot be accepted on the basis of material on record and the reasons stated above. 8. Thus the findings of the Courts below that defendant No. 2 was a sub-tenant cannot be borne out from the material on record and are perverse liable to be set aside. The landlord in these circumstances cannot take advantage having treated the defendant No. 2 as tenant, to file a suit for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting. 9. For the reasons stated above, it is not necessary to consider the other findings recorded by the Courts below as the petition is liable to succeed on this ground alone. 10. The petition succeeds and the order dated 25.8.1989 passed by the Eighth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and the order dated 22.3.1986 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court are quashed.