Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J.— By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 09.11.2011 and 28.07.2012, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 passed by O.P. Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Aspatali (since deceased) filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation before Learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, which was registered as SCC Suit No. 239 of 1998, which was contested by the petitioners. But, ultimately, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011. The petitioners preferred SCC revision No. 5 of 2012, which was also dismissed by Learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 17), Lucknow. The petitioners have challenged both the judgments through this writ petition. The respondents being legal heirs of the deceased landlord Asptali have put in appearance, but did not filed any counter affidavit. 3. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the records. 4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on the ground that they are landlords of House No. 136/4, Durvijayganj, P.S.- Naka, Lucknow. The defendants being legal representatives of deceased tenant Om Prakash are tenant of one room at monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. The defendants did not pay any rent since July, 1990, which was accumulated to the tune of Rs. 49,000/- up to 30.09.1998, and, as such, notice for demand coupled with termination of tenancy was sent. The defendants did not comply with the notice, hence the suit was filed. 5. The defendants, who are petitioners before me, filed their written statements and pleaded that the deceased landlord Asptali had agreed to sell the suit premises in favour of Om Prakash and registered agreement was executed on 20.09.1986. He, later on denied to perform his part of the contract, hence, the suit for specific performance of contract bearing Original Suit No. 78/1988 was filed which was decreed, but in an appeal, the suit was dismissed. He has taken certain pleas regarding sale of some parts after dividing the house into three portions, in which the defendants are licensees. 6. He has taken certain pleas regarding sale of some parts after dividing the house into three portions, in which the defendants are licensees. 6. During the course of proceeding before the learned Trial Court, five issues were framed, in which the relationship of landlord and tenant, the status of licensee, the factum of service of notice and the factum of default was to be determined. 7. The learned Trial Court held that relationship of landlord and tenant was subsisting between the parties. The tenancy had been terminated as service of notice is proved that the defendants who are petitioner before me are not licensees. This factum was determined by the learned Trial Court not only on the basis of oral evidence alone but on the basis of admitted registered agreement of sale, in para 7 of which it was recited that the possession shall be delivered at the time of execution of sale. On the strength of this fact, the learned Trial Court considered the oral evidence lead by the parties and has rightly reached to the conclusion that the defendants have never occupied the disputed premises as licensees. They were tenants right from the time of deceased tenant Om Prakash. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioners filed revision, in which the learned Revisional Court has discussed the entire evidence in detail, considered the oral as well as documentary evidence and concurred with the findings arrived at by the Learned Trial Court. 8. Though, normally, this court does not intervene to consider the evidence lead by the parties particularly, when the said evidence has already been scrutinized by the learned Revisional Court, yet, upon the insistence of learned Counsel for the petitioners the evidence was minutely scrutinized, in view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that since all the witnesses have not been produced, adverse inference should be drawn as against the respondents under illustration (g) to Section 114, Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Enuga Lakshmamma v. Vennapusa Chinna Malla Reddy, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 658. Reliance was also placed in the decision of Delhi High Court in Smt. Niranjan Kaur v. M/s New Delhi Hotels Ltd and Others, AIR 1988 Delhi 332. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Enuga Lakshmamma v. Vennapusa Chinna Malla Reddy, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 658. Reliance was also placed in the decision of Delhi High Court in Smt. Niranjan Kaur v. M/s New Delhi Hotels Ltd and Others, AIR 1988 Delhi 332. There is nothing to disagree with the judgment as the law laid down in two decisions mentioned above is virtually the law of the land and is being followed by all the Courts in India. But this law does not help the petitioners in this case, particularly because of the obvious reason that admittedly, relationship of landlord and tenant is existing between the parties since the time of their ancestors. The rent note was codified or not is immaterial, rent receipt was issued or not issued, is immaterial. The rate of land is undisputed between the parties. The only factum of dispute is that the petitioners have become licensees in the disputed premises from the date of execution of agreement to sell dated 20.09.1986. This execution does not help the petitioners as it is specifically mentioned in this agreement that possession on the property in question, shall be delivered to the purchaser at the time of registration of sale deed. In view of this averment in the registered agreement between the parties, the plaintiffs were not expected to disprove that the petitioners have become licensees with effect from the date of execution of agreement to sell. The possession of the petitioners continued to be that of tenant. No other infirmity was canvassed before me. 9. The deceased landlord Aspatali was examined before Learned Trial Court as P.W.-1, who has deposed that the suit premises were given on rent to Om Prakash before 1990. But no rent note/rent deed was reduced in writing. Entire argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners was based upon the cross-examination of Aspatali (P.W.-1), in which he has said that Badri, Bhairav, Jitendra etc. were present when the shop was let out to the tenants. Upon the stage of this statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that non-examination of these persons is fatal for the case of landlord. This argument is mis-placed when there is no dispute regarding tenancy at the beginning point of possession of the petitioners, the number of witnesses need not be examined. 10. Upon the stage of this statement, the learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that non-examination of these persons is fatal for the case of landlord. This argument is mis-placed when there is no dispute regarding tenancy at the beginning point of possession of the petitioners, the number of witnesses need not be examined. 10. On the basis of the discussion made above, the writ petition has no force. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. _____________