( 1 ) SUIT No. 397 of 1981 (Hazi Mohd. Noor Versus Sarjaz and others) was instituted in the court of Judge Small causes Court, bareilly, on the ground that tenancy of the Defendant-petitioner was determined by serving notice under Section 106 of Transfer of property Act and that he had sub let the accommodation in his tenancy, he was defaulter and failed to pay arrears of rent in spite of demand notice being served The Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) on the question of sub letting. It was pleaded that Defendant nos. 2,3 and 4 were his close relatives (Brother-in-law and Maternal uncle) who have been visiting in conclusion with him because of relationship. Parties led evidence. The Judge, Small Causes Court after perusing the evidence in detail recording a finding that Defendant-Petitioner had sublet the accommodation notice was legally severed and defendant had committed default in payment of rent and hence Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent was liable to be decreed. Accordingly, Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated February 15,1991. ( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved, Defendant-Petitioner filed Revision no. 7 of 1991 under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Act. The revision was also dismissed by the Court below (Respondent no. 1)vide judgment and order dated 28th May 1999. The Defendant-Petitioner, feeling aggrieved, has filed the present petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the judgement and order dated 15th February, 1991 (Annexure 3) passed by Judge, Small causes Court and Judgement and order dated 28th May, 1999 (Annexure 5) passed by Respondent no. 1. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 4 ) BOTH the Courts below have passed concurrent judgements. Finding record by Trial Court on the question of service of notice and that on the question of sub letting has been affirmed by the revisional Court after having carefully examined the question on the basis of material on record. ( 5 ) ON perusal of the judgment passed by Judge, Small Causes court, it is noticed that the Trial Court, after perusal of relevant material and evidence on record led by parties, came to the conclusion that Defendant nos. 2,3 and 4 were living in the accommodation in question. Trial Court referred to the statement of defendant no. ( 5 ) ON perusal of the judgment passed by Judge, Small Causes court, it is noticed that the Trial Court, after perusal of relevant material and evidence on record led by parties, came to the conclusion that Defendant nos. 2,3 and 4 were living in the accommodation in question. Trial Court referred to the statement of defendant no. 1 (DWl) wherein he admitted that the wife and children of Bannay, Defendant no. 2 who was maternal uncle of defendant- petitioner were living in the accommodation in question. The Trial Court also observed that alleged sub-tenants were using accommodation separately inasmuch as they had independently engaged sweeper, separately holding ration card and had their kitchen separately. From the perusal of statement of the plaintiff and defendant as well as voter list, Trial Court recorded finding of fact that Defendant nos. 2,3 and 4 were occupying accommodation in question in their own right, could not be said to be justified in arriving at the conclusion of sub letting. ( 6 ) HONble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Krishnawati versus Shri Hans Raj, reported in AIR 1974 SC 280 observed as follows:- "in the determination of a question of fact no application of any principle of law is required in finding either the basic facts or arriving at the ultimate conclusion; in a mixed question of law and fact the ultimate conclusion has to be drawn by applying principles of law to basic findings. . . . . . . . . The negative answer given to it by rent Courts is merely the factual common-sense inference, which did not call for application of any principle of law. In our view, no question of law - was involved in the Second Appeal. . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IN para 6 of the said judgement Honble Supreme Court has also noted as follows: "sub-letting was, therefore, the principal ground on which eviction was sought. When eviction is sought on that ground it is now settled law that the onus to prove sub-letting is on the landlord. If the landlord prima facie shows that the occupant who was in exclusive possession of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . If the landlord prima facie shows that the occupant who was in exclusive possession of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 8 ) HONble Supreme Court has, however, consistently taken the view that sub-letting cannot be established unless actual payment of rent by sub-lessee to lessee is proved but in those cases it had no occasion to consider legal position in view of the Provision of the act, 1972, where under actual payment of rent is not required to be proved by the landlord and mere occupation by a person, other than family of the tenant as defined in this Act, gives rise to the presumption of sub-letting. ( 9 ) THE Judge Small Causes Court, though did not record finding on this aspect (namely, whether rent was being paid by defendant no. 2, 3 and 4 sub-lessee to the original lessor- Defendant no. 1), Revision Court has adverted to this aspect and the gap left has been filled by providing the missing link. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that some valuable consideration must pass from sub-lessee to the lessee. The submission is wholly misconceived and is not tenable. Section 12 read with Section 25 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 contemplates legal presumption of sub-letting of accommodation, if tenement or part thereof is allowed to be occupied by a person who is not a member of the family of the tenant. In the instant case, a finding has been recorded to the effect that persons, who were not within the definition of family under the said Act, are occupying and using the accommodation in question. ( 11 ) FINDING of fact cannot be assailed in writ proceedings, particularly when petitioner has virtually conceded that finding are not vitiated. ( 12 ) THE Revision Court held that under the U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called the act) Defendant nos. 2,3 and 4 did not fall in the definition of family of tenant and , therefore, possession of these persons will amount to sub-letting as contemplated under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2,3 and 4 did not fall in the definition of family of tenant and , therefore, possession of these persons will amount to sub-letting as contemplated under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Record shows that there can be no controversy as to the applicability of the said Act. Even otherwise, petitioner has not challenged the factum of applicability of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and there is no ground to this effect in the writ petition. ( 13 ) IN view of the above, I do not find any manifest error apparent on the face of record warranting interference under Article 226/227, Constitution of India. ( 14 ) THE writ petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed. ( 15 ) AFTER judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for granting of time for vacating the accommodation in question and stated that his client defendant-Petitioner shall vacate the accommodation, without objection of any kind, in case tenant-petitioner is not dispossessed for some reasonable time i. e. six months. ( 16 ) IN view of the above, as well as taking into account the status of the petitioner and other attending circumstance, the tenant-petitioner be allowed to vacate the accommodation in question (subject matter of JSCC Suit No. 397 of 1981 - Hazi Mohd. Noor versus Sartaj and others) situate at Mohalla Bagh Birgitan, opposite kumar Talkies, District Bareilly, up to 31st January, 2000 provided: - 1. The tenant-petitioner/s file/s before concerned Prescribed authority, on or before 31st August, 1999, an application along with his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter: 2. Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for six months i. e. up to 31st January 2000. Tenant-petitioner, his representative/assignee, etc, claiming through him or otherwise, if any, shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question or before 31st January, 2000 to the landlord or landlords nominee/representative (if any, appointed and intimated by the landlord) by giving prior advance notice and notifying to the landlord by Registered A. D. post (on his last known address or as may be disclosed in advance by the landlord in writing before the concerned prescribed authority), time and date on which Landlord is to take possession from the tenant. 3. 3. Petitioners shall on or before 31st August, 1999 deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. up to date i. e. entire arrears of the past, if any, as well as the rent for the period ending on the 31st January, 2000. 4. Petitioners and everyone claiming under him undertake not to change or damage or transfer/alienate/assign in any manner, the accommodation in question. 5. In case tenant-petitioner/s fail to comply with any of the conditions/or direction/s contained in this order, landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant-petitioners forthwith from the accommodation in question by seeking police force through concerned prescribed authority. 6. Defaulting party shall pay Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as demages to the other party if there is violation of the undertaking or anyone or more of the conditions contained in this order. .