V. N. SINGH, J. The revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17-1-1995 passed by Sri S. C. Srivastava the then Addl. District Judge, Agra in S. C. C. Suit No. 26 of 1991. 2. The brief facts of the case is that Sri Girish Chandra Gupta has filed a S. C. C. Suit No. 26 of 1991 against Sri Ram Bharosey Lal for a decree for ejectment and damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 19712 alongwith pendenti lite and future @ 90 per month and for a decree of pendenti lite and future mesne profits @ Rs. 100 per day till the decree of actual possession. 3. The suit was filed with the contention that the plaintiff is landlord of the disputed premises and Sri Khubi Ram, father of the defendant 1st set (1 to 7) was tenant in a portion of the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 450 per month, besides water and house tax etc. Sri Khubi Lal did not pay the rent from 25- 11- 1984. 4. Sri Khubi Ram died leaving defendants 1st set (1 to 7) as heirs and legal representative and the tenancy devolved upon defendants 1st set. Neither any rent nor tax was paid by any of the defendants 1st set. 5. Late Khubi Ram and defendants 1st set has sub-let the said portion of tenancy to defendant IInd set (Gopi Chand and Jagdish Prasad), who are running oil expeller business in the name and style of M/s Narain Uddhog. 6. Khubi Ram and defendant 1st set inducted the persons, who are not the family members in the firm M/s Shiv Dal Mill and it has also been alleged that material alternation has been done and premises has been damaged. 7. The notice dated 7-6-1991 was served on the defendant. 8. Except defendant Nos. 1 to 4, no other defendant filed any written statement. 9. The contention of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 is that father of the contesting defendants Khubi Ram was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 450. Plaintiff did not accept the rent deliberately tendered to him. 10. It is incorrect to say that any portion of the building has been sub-let either to defendants No. 8 and 9 or any body else. 1 to 4 is that father of the contesting defendants Khubi Ram was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 450. Plaintiff did not accept the rent deliberately tendered to him. 10. It is incorrect to say that any portion of the building has been sub-let either to defendants No. 8 and 9 or any body else. It is also incorrect to say that, defendants No. 8 and 9 have installed any oil expeller Machine. The entire machine and its fitting in the building belonged to the contesting defendants and have been installed by them at their expenses. 11. It is also incorrect to say that Khubi Ram and contesting defendants inducted any person, outsider of family as partner in the business. 12. It was alleged that no outsider became partner and no substantial damage was caused to the building. 13. It is correct that reply of the notice was given and Rs. 41,000 was paid to the plaintiff towards the entire satisfaction of the plaintiff claim and they are not defaulter. 14. Learned trial Court framed following issues : (1) Whether defendants sub-let a part of the premises in suit to Jagdish Prasad proprietor of M/s Narain Uddhog? (2) Whether the defendants have inducted other persons, outside their family as partner? (3) Whether the defendants tenancy has been terminated by the notice dated 5-6-1991? 15. On Issue No. 1, finding was given by the learned trial Court that Jagdish Prasad was in exclusive possession over the premises in suit and was running the business of M/s Narain Uddhog. Thus he was sub-tenant of the defendants. 16. While deciding Issue No. 2, finding was given by the learned trial Court and Suresh Chandra, who is stranger to the family of the defendant has been inducted as partner of the defendants firm M/s Shiv Dal Mill. 17. While deciding Issue No. 3, it was held that, receipt of the notice is admitted. As defendants sub-let the premises and inducted Suresh Chandra hence defendants tenancy has been rightly terminated. 18. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, present revision has been filed. 19. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. Learned Counsel for the parties have filed their written arguments in support of their respective claims. 21. As defendants sub-let the premises and inducted Suresh Chandra hence defendants tenancy has been rightly terminated. 18. Aggrieved by the judgment and order, present revision has been filed. 19. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. Learned Counsel for the parties have filed their written arguments in support of their respective claims. 21. It has been argued by learned Counsel for revisionists that regarding sub-letting, learned trial Court has relied on the (i) certified copy of the Amin report paper No. 34/c dated 30-10-1991 of the Original Suit No. 567 of 1991 between the same parties (ii) copy of the agreement of tenancy dated 25-8-1979 between Pradeep Kumar son of Sri Ram Bharosey Lal and Sri Jagdish Prasad (iii) copy of the application form No. 14 dated 24-8-1989 submitted by Sri Jagdish Prasad before Sales Tax Officer for registration of his firm M/s Narain Uddhog. 22. The Amin report and its enclosures have been challenged by the revisionists on the grounds that : (i) it had not been proved that exhibited as per Order XIII, Rules 4 and 7 CPC and Rules 52, 53 and 57 of General Rules (Civil ). (ii) Amin report was in a different Suit No. 567 of 1991. (iii) Defendants objection to the Amin report had not been disposed of and the report had not been confirmed as alleged by D. W. 1 Sri Ram Bharosey Lal. (iv) Amin had no authority to collect the evidence of certified copy of the agreement dated 25-8-1989 between Pradeep Kumar and Jagdish Prasad and copy of the application form No. 14 dated 24- 8-1989 submitted between Pradeep Kumar and Jagdish Prasad. It has also been argued that Amin report is not a public document. 23. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decisions in Harbansh Lal v. Jagmohan Saran, referred to 1985 AWC 903, decision in Radhey v. Board of Revenue, referred in, AIR 1990 All 175 , decision in State of U. P. v. Smt. Ram Sri and another, AIR 1976 All 121, decision in Raj Kishan v. State, referred in AIR 1960 All 460 and decision in Ram Charan and others v. Murli and others, 1975 AWC 264 . 24. 24. Argument of the learned Counsel for revisionists is that, in view of the above mentioned decisions, as the report of Amin has not been disposed off, hence, it cannot be taken into consideration and has to be ignored. Moreover, without oral testimony of the commissioner report was not admissible and that commissioner report was not a public document and as commissioner was not appointed for collection of the evidence as such report cannot be relied upon. 25. In this connection, learned Counsel for opposite parties has cited the decision of Southern Command Military Engineering Services Employee Co-operative Credit Society v. V. K. M. Nambiyar, referred in AIR 1988 SC 2126 . In the above mentioned case, it has been held by Honble Supreme Court that, learned trial Court has drawn an inference of sub-letting relying upon the Commissioners report, which showed that premises were no longer in occupation of the tenant but in occupation of the stranger. Honble Supreme Court has held that, the High Court was in error in holding that the commissioners report could not be relied upon or be treated as a legal evidence. " 26. In this connection, decision in Allah Tala Malik Waqf v. Raisuddin and others, refferred to in 1989 (2) ARC 201, has been cited, in which, it was held that, certified copy of the judicial record is admissible in evidence and as such, if certified copy of the commissioners report has been considered by the Prescribed Authority, it cannot be said to be improper. 27. The argument of the revisionists is that, it has been alleged in Para 16 at Page 9 of the rejoinder- affidavit and D. W. 1 Sri Ram Bharosey Lal has deposed that, Amin report has not been disposed off and has not been confirmed. It has not been rebutted by the opposite parties, or any evidence that, report of the Amin has been disposed off and has been confirmed. 28. Argument of the revisionists is that in view of the above mentioned facts and in view of the fact that, Amin has not been examined, nor revisionist had opportunity to cross-examine him, his report cannot be relied upon. 29. Regarding summoning of documents from the Sales Tax department including form No. 14 paper No. 52 Ka, it has been argued that this paper was collected by the Amin. 30. 29. Regarding summoning of documents from the Sales Tax department including form No. 14 paper No. 52 Ka, it has been argued that this paper was collected by the Amin. 30. It has also been alleged that regarding summoning the paper, the procedure prescribed under Order XVI, Rule 1 (4) CPC and format of form No. 13 of Appendix "b" of CPC has not been followed. (i) It has also been argued that no one from the Sales Tax department has come to depose that, documents were originally public documents and had been kept as official record of public office, as per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act (ii) no one from Sales Tax department has stated that the entries made therein had been made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, (iii) contents of the document have not been proved as per Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, and (iv) plaintiff was competent to prove document or their contents in accordance with Sections 45, 47 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act. 31. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Smt. Kunti Devi and others v. Radhey Shyam, referred in AIR 1978 Allahabad, 185, in which it has been held that, mere fact that documents were coming from the Government department and bear it seal will not dispense with the necessity of formally proving the document. 32. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Kalwaru Yadav v. Ram Surat Harijan, referred in 1964 ALJ 1139 and decision in Karuppanna Thevar (dead) and others v. Rajagopala Thevar and others, referred in AIR 1975, Madras 257. 33. It has also been argued by learned Counsel for revisionists that documents have not been proved, hence admission of Suresh Chand was, based on wholly inadmissible evidence. 34. It has also been argued that statement of Sri Om Prakash Agarwal has to be ignored. 35. It has been argued by the revisionist that sub-letting is to be established through cogent and reliable evidence and cannot be presumed. 36. 34. It has also been argued that statement of Sri Om Prakash Agarwal has to be ignored. 35. It has been argued by the revisionist that sub-letting is to be established through cogent and reliable evidence and cannot be presumed. 36. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Vishwanath Singh v. Special Judge, referred in 1999 UPRCC 321, decision in Smt. Brij Bala Jain v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, referred in 1997 (1) JCLr 142 (All); 1996 JRJ 644, decision in Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi, referred in 1984 AWC 375 and decision in Fazalur Rahmana v. XIIth A. D. J. , referred in 1998 (2) JCLR 17 (All) : 1998 (1) JRJ 381. 37. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that as per paper No. 56-A, admission of Suresh Chandra was of the year 1971 i. e. , prior to the enforcement of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, no cognizance could be taken. 38. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Madan Mohan v. City Magistrate, Auriaya, referred in 1998 (1) JCLR 841 (All) : 1998 (1) ARC 475. 39. Argument of the learned Counsel for revisionists is that, since very beginning it was alleged that Jagdish Prasad was not tenant and it was the case of Theka. It was not necessary to plead that Jagdish Prasad was given a Theka, as in the written statement the allegation of sub-letting was denied and the status of Jagdish Prasad could be explained through evidence and it was alleged by D. W. 1 Sri Ram Bharosey Lal in the evidence that, Jagdish Prasad was only given a Theka to use the machine and he was not sub-tenant. 40. It has also been argued that, learned trial Court was not justified in granting a decree for damages at the rate higher than the rate of the rent, nor trial Court can grant a decree from the date of filing of the suit. 41. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Smt. Chandra Kali Bali v. Jagdish Singh Thakur and another, referred in AIR 1977 SC 2262 . 42. Argument of the learned Counsel for opposite parties is that, paper summoned from the Sales Tax department has been proved. 43. 41. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Smt. Chandra Kali Bali v. Jagdish Singh Thakur and another, referred in AIR 1977 SC 2262 . 42. Argument of the learned Counsel for opposite parties is that, paper summoned from the Sales Tax department has been proved. 43. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the statement of Sri Girish Chandra Gupta, opposite party, who deposed that he summoned the paper from the Sales Tax department. He also deposed that paper No. 62-A Form No. 14 is of U. P. Sales Tax Department. It has been registered in the name of Jagdish Prasad, who is proprietor of M/s Narain Uddhog, who does the business in the portion of the premises No. 8/168-D and run Oil Mill. He also deposed that statement of Jagdish Prasad was written on the back of form by the Sales Tax Officer and it bears the signature of Jagdish Prasad and Sales Tax Officer. 44. It has also been argued that, Sri Jagdish Prasad, who is defendant No. 9 did not come before the Court to contest the case, nor he produced himself as a witness to deny that, he was not examined by the Sales Tax department and that it does not bear his signature and the signature of Sales Tax Officer. 45. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the statement of revisionist Ram Bharosey Lal, who deposed that, he does not know in which, portion Jagdish Prasad was doing business as M/s Narain Uddhog. He stated that, Jagdish Prasad used to pay Rs. 800/- per month as rent. He also admitted that, Jagdish Prasad started Oil Mill in 1989. 46. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for opposite party that no where in the written statement, it was alleged by the revisionist that disputed building was given on Theka to defendants No. 8 and 9. For the first time before the Court D. W. 1 Ram Bharosey Lal deposed that, it was given on Theka to Jagdish Prasad. 47. It has also been argued that, statement of Sri Ram Bharosey Lal that disputed premises was given on Theka to Jagdish Prasad is against the pleadings. 48. For the first time before the Court D. W. 1 Ram Bharosey Lal deposed that, it was given on Theka to Jagdish Prasad. 47. It has also been argued that, statement of Sri Ram Bharosey Lal that disputed premises was given on Theka to Jagdish Prasad is against the pleadings. 48. It has also been argued that, revisionist is not entitled to take a contradictory new plea at the time of recording statement, after plaintiffs evidence has been closed. Plaintiff-opposite party had no opportunity to rebut this new plea regarding Theka by the defendant. 49. Defendant revisionist did not get the written statement amended in connection with Theka. 50. It has been argued by the opposite parties that, Pradeep Kumar, who has been impleaded as defendant No. 9 and is son of Sri Ram Bharosey Lal defendant No. 1 did not come to deny the signature over the agreement. 51. It has also been argued that, no suggestion was given to Sri Girish Chandra Gupta during his cross- examination that, Pradeep Kumar and Sri Ram Bharosey Lal did not sign the paper No. 53/c agreement deed. 52. It has also been argued that, as it has not been challenged by giving suggestion, presumption arises that one party has accepted the version of other party. 53. The argument of the opposite party is that, opposite party pleaded that Suresh Chandra, who has been inducted as partner of M/s Shiv Dal Mills in 1978, is not a family member of the revisionist. 54. Defendant revisionist has not filed any documentary evidence to rebut the case of the plaintiff opposite party. The record of M/s Shiv Dal Mills was summoned by the plaintiff from the Sales Tax department, according to which, Suresh Chandra has the share of 25% was partner of the firm. 55. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the statement of Sri Om Prakash Agarwal, recorded on 10- 5-1978 in connection of registration of firm, who deposed that Ram Bharosey Lal has ceased to be partner of the firm and in his place Suresh Chand has been inducted as new partner in 1978 while tenancy was created in 1975. Sri Om Prakash Agarwal, who has been impleaded as defendant, did not come to deny his statement or contents of the registration certificate. 56. Sri Om Prakash Agarwal, who has been impleaded as defendant, did not come to deny his statement or contents of the registration certificate. 56. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Trilok Singh v. M/s Bhagwani Prasad Girdhari Lal, 1992 (2) ARC 265, in which, it has been held that, if direct evidence regarding sub- letting is not available, finding can be recorded on the basis of other relevant fact and evidence because on the question of sub- tenancy it is always difficult to get direct evidence. 57. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Gurdyal Khanna and others v. Smt. Malti Devi, referred in 1992 (2) ARC 624, in which, it has been held that, in the cases involving sub-letting, it is difficult for the landlord to produce direct evidence regarding existence of relationship of tenant in chief and the alleged sub- tenant, because the matter is specially within their knowledge. In order to prove sub-letting the landlord has to rely on attending circumstances. It is in this view of the matter that the legislature has provided for a presumption of the fact about coming into existence of sub-tenancy taking recourse to a legal fiction. 58. In this connection, attention of the Court has been drawn towards the decision in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad and others, referred in 1996 (2) JCLR 297 (All) : 1995 (1) ARC 220 (SC), in which, it has been held that, admitting son in law in the business as a partner by tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building by tenant. Son in law does not come within the meaning of family as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act. As such under Section 25 of the Act, it shall be deemed that, tenant and sub-let the building, as such he is liable to be eviction under Section 20 (2) (e) of the Act. 59. It has been argued that, Suresh Chandra, who is stranger of the family of the tenant and who has been inducted as partner by the defendant in the firm M/s Shiv Dal Mills and is still in possession presumption arises that tenant of the building has ceased to occupy the building. 60. 59. It has been argued that, Suresh Chandra, who is stranger of the family of the tenant and who has been inducted as partner by the defendant in the firm M/s Shiv Dal Mills and is still in possession presumption arises that tenant of the building has ceased to occupy the building. 60. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for opposite party that scope of revision under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Court Act is limited and the finding of the fact cannot be set aside unless there is miscarriage of justice or decision is not in accordance with law as per decision referred in 1994 (2) ARC 265, Ravindra Nath v. Jagdish. 61. It has been argued that the revisionist could not show that their has been niscarriage of justice or decision is not in accordance with law. 62. After going through the evidence and finding, the Court is of the view that interference on question of fact is not proper as neither miscarriage of justice has taken place nor decision of the trial Court is against the law. 63. However, it is true that, learned trial Court has granted decree for recovery of damages from the date of filing of the suit till possession is handed over to him. Learned trial Court was not justified in granting the damages from the date of filing of the suit, but damages should have been granted since the date of the decree instead of from the date filing of the suit. As such the revision is liable to be allowed in part only. 64. The revision is allowed in part. The plaintiff opposite party is entitled for the relief of ejectment from the premises in suit and for recovery of damages @ 1500 per month from the date of decree till the possession is handed over to him with costs. The revisionist is granted one month time from the date of the judgment to hand over the vacant possession to plaintiff opposite party. Revision partly allowed. .