Judgment Heard Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner; Standing counsel for the respondent nO.1 and Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate Authority evicting the petitioner in proceedings under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent no. 2 filed a case No. 142 of 2002, in Court of Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Haridwar on 29-09-2001 for the eviction of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 from the shop in question and for the arrears of rent. 4. Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Haridwar issued notices U/s 4 Sub-section (1) and under Section 7 Sub section (2) of UP Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to the petitioner on 29-09-2001. In the plaint, it was alleged by the Nagar Palika Parishad that a sum of Rs. 3,400/- is due against Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta, who was a tenant of Rs. 300/- per month, but has failed to pay the rent and a sum of Rs. 34001- accrued against him. 5. Further, it has been stated in the application under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act that Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta defendant no. 1 has sub-let the premises to the defendant no. 2 Radhey Krishna and hence the defendant no. 1 is entitled for the eviction. The application was allowed on 16th April, 2003. Both the defendants have preferred an appeal. The appellate Court has also confirmed the findings. Both the courts below have recorded a finding that the premises was let out to Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta defendant no. 1, whereas the same has been sub-let to Radhey Krishna defendant no. 2 and as such the defendants, are liable to be evicted. Notice under Section 7 was also sent for the recovery of the amount against Sri Shiv Ohm Gupta, but the same has not been paid. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was an agreement between Shiv Ohm Gupta and Radhey Krishna that the petitioner alone shall run the business. The said agreement is dated 27th January, 2001. It is unregistered agreement and no consent has been obtained from the Nagar Palika for subletting the premises to the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was an agreement between Shiv Ohm Gupta and Radhey Krishna that the petitioner alone shall run the business. The said agreement is dated 27th January, 2001. It is unregistered agreement and no consent has been obtained from the Nagar Palika for subletting the premises to the petitioner. Further more the document further establishes the subletting on the part of the tenant in favour of the petitioner and there is no doubt that the tenant has surrendered the possession in favour of the petitioner. 7. Both the courts below have passed the decree against the original tenant. The petitioner was also a party in the proceedings and as such the same is also binding upon the petitioner. Further the original tenant has not preferred any writ petition and has not disputed this fact. 8. It is well settled that even a sub lessee need not be made a party, the decree is binding on the sub-lessee as well. 9. Relying upon the judgments of Burmah Shell Oil Distributing v. Khuja Midhat Noor and others, AIR 1988 SC 1470, Ram Bihari Lal Srivastava v. Smt. Puma Devi and others, 1986 (U.P.) RCC 187 and Mis Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. Pheroze Framrooze Taraporewala, AIR 1953 SC 73, it has been held in Mohan Lal Garg Vs. Suresh Chand Jain and others 1994(1) ARC Page 211, as under:- "15. Strong reliance has been placed on Burmah Shell Oil Distributing v. Khaja Midhat Noor and others, AIR 1988 SC 1470, in which it is held : "It is quite clear that law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party, if there was a valid termination of the lease. In all cases where the landlord instituted a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quite served on the lessee and did not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee." 16. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee." 16. In Ram Bihari Lal Srivastava v. Smt. Puma Devi and others, 1986 (U.P) RCC 187, it was held :- "It is well settled that where the tenancy of the tenant-in-chief is terminated, the tenancy of the sub-tenant also comes to an end. 18. In M/s Importers and Manufactures Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala, AIR 1953 SC 73, it was held: "........ . Under the Ordinary Law a decree for possession passed against a tenant in a suit for ejectment in binding on a person claiming title under or through that tenant and is executable against such person whether or not he was or was not a party to the suit. The non-joinder of such a person does not render the decree any the less binding on him. It is in this sense, therefore, that he is not a necessary party to an ejectment suit against the tenant. 19. The question is whether the appellant could be said to be claiming his right independently accruing under the law or only through the lessee of the original lessor. It is not in dispute that a lease-deed was executed by Ram Prasad Bajpai to Smt. Radha Rani initially in 1962 and Smt. Radha Rani inducted appellant in the shop in 1965 and before efflux of the said lease/rent deed another was executed in the year 1973 and in case Smt. Radha Rani was lessee/tenant of Ram Prasad, the appellant then at best he is sub-tenant of the accommodation in question and thus right of appellant would only flow through Smt. Radha Rani and not independently. This is the principle as laid down in the case of M/s Importer and Manufactures Ltd. v. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala (supra), and also in the case of Sheikh Yusuf v. Jyotish Chandra Banerjee (supra). A decree as against the lessee binds under-tenant also provided the under-tenant has no right independent of the right of the lessor meaning thereby that if a sub-lessee claims a right independent of the tenant then only in such a case, such a decree would not be binding." 10. It is well settled that sub lessee has no independent right and once the chief tenant surrenders or a decree is passed against him, the sub lessee has no independent status so as to file the writ petition. 11. It is well settled that sub lessee has no independent right and once the chief tenant surrenders or a decree is passed against him, the sub lessee has no independent status so as to file the writ petition. 11. However, this order will not deprive the petitioner from getting the allotment independently from the respondent no.2. In case the petitioner represents to the authority concerned, the same may be considered in accordance with law. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below so as to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Subject to the aforesaid, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.