JUDGMENT A.B. Srivastava 1. BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have sought quashing of judgment and order dated 17-2-1993 of the J.S.C.C. Gorakhpur decreeing the suit for their eviction and order dated 28-10-1993 of the First Additional District Judge Gorakhpur confirming the same in revision. 2. THE premises in question situate in Mohalla Muftipur in the city of Gorakbpur fully described at the foot the plaint was in the teancy of late Parmatma Prasad Srivastava who died pendentelite and his widow and two sons the present petitioners were brought on record as his legal representatives. THE rate of rent per month was Rs. 23.25. P. THE suit was filed impleading the tenant Parmatma Prasad Srivastava as defendant no. 1 and Balram Srivastava the respondent no. 4 as defendant no. 2 with the allegations that the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than four months since February 1983 which he did not pay despite demand. He has sublet the premises to the defendant no. 2 Balram Srivastava without any permission from the landlord and does not himself now live in this house and a notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 21-7-1983 was served on the defendant no. 1 who failed to comply hence the suit. The suit was contested by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 who filed joint written statement denying the allegations of the landlord and pleading that no rent was in arrears as the same has been regularly deposited on account of the landlord's refusal, under section 30 of Act 13 of 1972, the notice served was invalid and was duly replied, no portion of the premises in question has been sublet to the defendant no. 2, rather the said defendant who is a close relation of the defendant no. 1 and is posted as a Dy. C.D.O. in Gorakhpur has been allowed to live in one room of this house, to look after the defendant no. 1 who is suffering from paralysis, as well as his wife. The suit was initially dismissed by the J.S.C.C. on 21-7-1984 on the findings that there was default, the subletting was not established, although notice was valid In revision preferred by the landlord the first Addl. 1 who is suffering from paralysis, as well as his wife. The suit was initially dismissed by the J.S.C.C. on 21-7-1984 on the findings that there was default, the subletting was not established, although notice was valid In revision preferred by the landlord the first Addl. District Judge while confirming the findings on the question of validity of notice and absence of default, set aside the finding of the J.S C.C. on the question of subletting and remanded the case for decision afresh after recording a finding on the said question. After considering the various questions raised by the parties and materials on record, the learned J.S.C.C. by the impugned judgment dated 17-2-1993 found that the factum of subletting was also established and he accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment, the said finding was confirmed in revision. 3. IN this writ petition affidavits have been exchanged between the parties as such it is being finally disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 4. CONTENTIONS on behalf of the petitioners in the Writ Petition are two fold, firstly that the petitioners were not allowed opportunity to rebut the documentary evidence admitted in the revision filed against the judgment dated 2I-7-1984 and this has vitiated the impugned orders. Secondly there is no legal and valid evidence to prove the factum of subletting. As to the first question regarding lack of opportunity to produce evidence it has been contended by the [learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional court while hearing the revision against the judgment dated 21-7-1984 had no jurisdiction to permit additional evidence in view of the fact that Order 41 Rule 27 CPC dealing with additional evidence in appeals does not apply to revisions. This contention [however, does not have force. A court hearing revision under section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act does have the inherent power in view of the provisions of Section 151 of CPC to permit additional evidence to be brought on record at revisional stage, where such evidence in necessary for doing justice between the parties. This view finds support the principles laid down in Baboo Ram v. Additional District Judge Dehradun, 1983 (1) ARC 15 and Smt. Gulabi Devi v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge E. C. Act Etawah, 1992 (1) ARC 148. This view finds support the principles laid down in Baboo Ram v. Additional District Judge Dehradun, 1983 (1) ARC 15 and Smt. Gulabi Devi v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge E. C. Act Etawah, 1992 (1) ARC 148. The plea that the documentary evidence brought on record at the stage of revision could not be legally considered against the petitioners due to lack of opportunity of rebuttal is also not tenable. In the instant case the documents were admitted on record after hearing the parties by the revisional court which specifically mentioned in its judgment dated 18-9-1991 that the same can also be looked into while deciding the question in issue. It is true that the trial court after remand rejected the prayer of the petitioners to lead additional evidence on the question of sub-tenancy. but as has been pointed out by the learned revisional court in its order dated 28-10-1993, there was sufficient material on record from both sides and the case had been remanded earlier to the trial court for fresh appraisal off the evidence and decide the question of sub-tenancy according to law. Obviously it was so done because the revisional court under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act did not have the power to assess the evidence itself on facts. Apart from it till this stage, the petitioners have not pointed out as to what evidence they intended to produce in rebuttal of the documents admitted by the revisional court. Clearly therefore, there was no prejudice caused to the petitioners and the impugned finding and judgment could not be assailed on account of lack of opportunity of evidence in rebuttal. 5. NOW coming to the question of subletting, it would be found that the two courts below have on a consideration of the material on record found it as a matter of fact that respondent no 2 had been inducted into the premises in question by the tenant late Parmatma Prasad as sub-tenant, and not as a mere care taker or an attendant. The mere fact of the respondent no. 4 being a close relation (Sarhoo) of the tenant late Parmatma Prasad, does not raise presumption that he was allowed to live in a portion of this house Co look after the tenant who was suffering from serious ailment and during his absence to look after his wife. The mere fact of the respondent no. 4 being a close relation (Sarhoo) of the tenant late Parmatma Prasad, does not raise presumption that he was allowed to live in a portion of this house Co look after the tenant who was suffering from serious ailment and during his absence to look after his wife. Subletting in contravention of law or winout the consent of the landlord being clandestine affair, obviously direct evidence of contract of sub-tenancy or payment of rent could not be produced by the landlord and it would be a matter of inference depending upon proof of exclusive possession of the alleged sub-tenant and also other circumstances which could enable to raise a presumption of relationship of lessor and lessee between him and the tenant. 6. IN Lakshmi Nandan v. Triloki [Nath, 1979 AWC 140 , It has been held that proof of exclusive possession and circumstances enabling the court to conclude with fair amount of reasonableness that relationship of lessor and lessee existed between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant are the essential ingredients from which a legitimate inference of sub-tenancy can be drawn. In Jagdish Prasad v, Smt. Angoori Devi, 1984 (2) LCD 189, while dealing with the question of sub-letting in relation to a shop, the Supreme Court held that sub-letting can not be presumed merely from the presence of a person other than tenant in the shop, so long the control over premises is kept by and the business run in it is of, the tenant 7. IN the Instant case besides other evidence led by the landlords indicating exclusive possession of the respondent no. 4 there were two very glaring circumstances going to prove that the tenant had virtually withdrawn himself from this premises and it was in the sole occupation of the respondent no. 4, his occupation was as a subtenant and not as a mere relation or attendant or a licencee. The notice of demand and termination was admittedly sent to late Parmatma Prasad at his address in the city of Basti and it was also served at the said address. The other document was the voters list of the years 1988 going to show that the respondent no. 4, his wife, son and daughter were all recorded as voters from the premises in question. The other document was the voters list of the years 1988 going to show that the respondent no. 4, his wife, son and daughter were all recorded as voters from the premises in question. This would not have been the case if as contended by the petitioners, the respondent no. 4 stayed in a room in this house for a short period to attend ailing Parmatma Prasad and during his absences, his wife. The courts below also rightly took notice of the fact that the respondent no. 4 has not produced any voter's list or other documentary evidence: to indicate that he at any relevant point of time lived in another house in Mohalla Rajendra Nagar of Gorakhpur. As far as the fact of now his residing at Bombay after his retirement with son is concerned, the same is of not consequence because the question in issue is whether at the time of filing the suit and terminating the tenancy, the premises had been sublet to him. 8. BOTH the learned J.S.C.C. and the revisional court thus committed no manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction in rendering the impugned findings and ordering eviction of the defendants to the suit. This writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to fail. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.