S. U. KHAN, J. This is defendants writ petition who claims himself to be very old licensee of main tenant Dwarika Prasad Bhatnagar (DP. Bhat nagar) hence immune from eviction. Respondent No. 2 landlady Smt. Sharda Devi filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against petitioner claiming him to be the tenant. Eviction was sought on the ground of default. Suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 493 of 1984. JSCC, Meerut through judgment and decree dated 6-3-1991 dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree landlady respon dent No. 2 filed SCC Revision No. 85 of 1991. VIII A. D. J. , Meerut through judg ment and order dated 12-2-1993, al lowed the revision, set-aside the judg ment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation hence this writ petition. 2. The suit for eviction was filed only in respect of part of tenanted ac commodation on trie ground that plain tiff had purchased only part of the tenanted accommodation. Such a suit is quite maintainable by virtue of Sec tion 109 of Transfer of Property Act, ac cording to which if less - transfers part of the tenanted prop, rty the transferee possess all his rights. 3. Petitioner pleaded that R. P. Bhatnagar son of D. P. Bhatnagar was the main tenant and he being the rela tion of D. P. Bhatnagar was residing as his licensee for 40 years and as R. R Bhatnagar was not impleaded in the suit hence suit was bad. 4. Plaintiff purchased the property from Harish Chandra Goyal and his wife Vimla Goyal through registered sale-deed dated 8-9-1983. According to the plaint rate of rent was Rs. 100 per month. Trial Court had held that relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant was not proved. 5. Revisicnal Court held that defendant could not even give the name of wife of D. P. Bhatnagar who ac cording to him was his fathers real sister. Revisional Court also held that defendant stated that his age was about 50 years hence 40 years before he would be of 10 years old hence it was not possible for him to take the house in dispute as licencee. Revisional Court also held that defendant stated that his age was about 50 years hence 40 years before he would be of 10 years old hence it was not possible for him to take the house in dispute as licencee. Revisional Court also observed that defendant could not give any period (month, year, weather) when house in dispute was given on licence to him. 6. Even if the version of the defen dant that he was licensee and close relation of tenant is accepted, then he becomes agent of the tenant for all pur poses and service of notice of termina tion of tenancy upon him and filing suit for eviction against him cannot be said to be illegal. The plea of defendant that chief tenant has not been given any notice and has not been impleaded in the suit, can be taken only by the chief tenant. 7. In any case, revisional Court has found that defendant was tenant. In ex ercise of writ jurisdiction where equi table approach is paramount, I do not feel inclined to interfere in the said find ing even if it is assumed to be incorrect. Petitioner himself is asserting that neither he is liable to pay any rent/damages for use and occupation nor he has ever paid any amount. Set ting aside judgment of the revisional Court would amount to protracting the possession of the petitioner without payment of any rent/damages for use and occupation, which will be extremely unjust. 8. There is one more aspect of the matter. Defendant claimed that for 40 years he was residing on behalf of the tenant without any objection by the owners/landlords. This assertion means that it was a case of permissible transfer of interest of lessee in the property. In such situation there may not be a privity of contract in between lessor and lessee but at least there is privity of estate in between them as held by the Privy Council in AIR 1939 PC 14 and this Court in AIR 1973 Alld 217. 9. Revisional Court also held that the name of the defendant was entered as tenant of the property in dispute in Nagar Palika records from 1976 to 1981 and this was a very strong evidence to prove the tenancy of the defendant. 9. Revisional Court also held that the name of the defendant was entered as tenant of the property in dispute in Nagar Palika records from 1976 to 1981 and this was a very strong evidence to prove the tenancy of the defendant. Neither the landlady examined H. C. Goyal who had transferred the property to him nor defenaarn examinee alleged chief tenant R. P. Bhatnagar on of D. P. Bhatnagar. For not examining H. C. Goyal, landlady gave the reason that her terms with him were not cordial and some FIR had also been lodged. How ever, defendant did not give any reason for not examining R. R Bhatnagar. In ITS oral statement hi stated that he even know the where about of R. R E i.-nagar. 10. On the basis of municipal records where name of defendant were entered as tenant since purchase of the property in dispute by plaintiff revisional Court rightly inferred that defendant was the tenant. Even if it is assumed that in or about 1950, D. P. Bhatnagar was the main tenant and he handed over possession of the tenanted property to the defendant and name of the defendant was entered as tenant in the municipal records then it means that defendant was accepted as tenant by the landlords. 11. Accordingly neither I find any such error in the judgment of the revisional Court, which may warrant in terference in exercise of writ jurisdiction nor I consider it just and equitable to set- aside the judgment of the revisional Court. 12. Accordingly writ petition is dis missed, 13. Petitioner is granted six months time tuvacate provided that: (1) Within six weeks from today he files an undertaking before the JSCC to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord- respondent. (2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioner to vacate he is required to pay Rs. 3, 000 (at the rate of Rs. 500 per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within six weeks before the JSCC and shall immediately be paid to the landlord- respondent. (3) Entire decr. eetal amount due till date shall also be deposited within six weeks from today before the trial Court for immediate payment to landlord. 500 per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within six weeks before the JSCC and shall immediately be paid to the landlord- respondent. (3) Entire decr. eetal amount due till date shall also be deposited within six weeks from today before the trial Court for immediate payment to landlord. It is further directed that in case un dertaking is not filed or entire decreetal amount due till date and Rs. 3, 000 are not deposited within six weeks then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1, 000 per month since after six weeks till the date of actual vacation. 14. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing entire decreetal amount due till date alongwith Rs. 3000, the property in dispute is not vacatec on the expiry of six months then damages for use and oc cupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month since after six months till actual vacation. Petitior dismissed. RAJESH .