Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. In this writ petition on 14.8.2013 following order was passed:- "Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent, who appears through caveat. Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent states that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit and entire writ petition might be disposed of at the admission stage. Judgement reserved. Until delivery of judgement petitioner shall not be evicted from the shop in dispute." 2. This is tenants writ petition arising out of SCC Suit No. 6 of 2005 instituted by landlord respondent no.2 Jagannath against them for their eviction from the tenanted accommodation in dispute which is a shop. According to the plaint allegation in brief Ashok Kumar defendant petitioner no.1 was the tenant on behalf of previous owner of property in dispute Sri Krishna Gopal Nigam from whom the plaintiff respondent no.2 purchased the property in dispute through registered sale deed dated 24.8.2005. The ground of eviction mentioned in the plaint was subletting of the tenanted accommodation by tenant petitioner no.1 to his real brother Chunni Lal petitioner defendant no.2. It was further asserted that Ashok Kumar had completely withdrawn himself from the business carried out from the premises in dispute and shifted his business/shop situate in his residence. 3. Before filing the suit tenancy was terminated through notice dated 01.10.05. 4. It was also stated in the plaint that rent for two months i.e. September and October, 2005 at the rate of Rs.500/-per month (total Rs.1,000/-) was due along with Rs.50/-per month as water tax. Accordingly the only ground of eviction taken in the plaint was of subletting as admittedly default was only of two months (not more than three months as required by Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972). JSCC/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gonda through judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 holding that sub letting was not proved dismissed the suit for eviction and decreed it only for recovery of arrears of rent and water tax. 5. Against the said decree landlord respondent no.2 filed SCC Revision No. 304 of 2012. ADJ, Court No.10, Gonda allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 31.5.2013, set aside the decree of the trial court refusing to decree the suit for eviction and decreed the suit for eviction also. 5. Against the said decree landlord respondent no.2 filed SCC Revision No. 304 of 2012. ADJ, Court No.10, Gonda allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 31.5.2013, set aside the decree of the trial court refusing to decree the suit for eviction and decreed the suit for eviction also. The said judgment and order passed by the lower revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition. 6. In between Ashok Kumar the tenant and Krishan Gopal Nigam previous owner/ landlord an agreement of tenancy/rent note dated 7.12.1991 had been executed which was filed before the trial court copy of which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Petitioner/defendant no. 2 was not party to the agreement. In the said agreement it was mentioned that Ashok Kumar was continuing as tenant of the shop in question since 1974 at monthly rent of Rs.200/-; the shop was quite old and in dilapidated condition and both the parties had agreed that tenant after demolishing the same would make new construction at his own cost and after new construction there would be no increase in the rent and the cost of new construction would not be adjusted in the rent. 7. Petitioner defendant no.2 in his oral statement stated that he and his brother petitioner defendant no.1 were partners in the business carried out from the shop in dispute and the partnership was registered in the office of the trade tax with effect from 1.4.2006 (during pendency of the suit). From the shop in dispute Sweets are being sold under the name and style of Kishan Sweet Store. The lower revisional court held that the trial court had illegally held that both the partners were tenant since before the agreement of 1991. The revisional court further held that from the shop in dispute only petitioner defendant no.2 Chunni Lal was carrying on business and petitioner defendant no.1 was carrying on business from a shop in another locality Ram Leela Maidan. Lower revisional court particularly placed reliance upon the oral evidence of Krishna Kumar Srivastava DW4 who in his cross examination stated that in the shop in dispute Chunni Lal was doing business in the name of Kishan Sweet Store and prior to that the name of the shop was Ashok Sweet Store. Lower revisional court particularly placed reliance upon the oral evidence of Krishna Kumar Srivastava DW4 who in his cross examination stated that in the shop in dispute Chunni Lal was doing business in the name of Kishan Sweet Store and prior to that the name of the shop was Ashok Sweet Store. Reliance was also placed upon the statement of Shyam Naresh DW3 who stated that since 1992 he was seeing Chunni Lal sitting on the shop in dispute. Revisional court also placed reliance upon papers 115 Ga and 116 Ga in which the tenant was shown to be Ashok Sweet Store from 1976 to 1996. These documents were copies of Municipal Board Assessment Records. It was also observed that in the rent receipts name of petitioner no.1 alone was mentioned. 8. The defendants had filed copies of Municipal Board Assessment Register of 2001 to 2006 showing both the petitioners to be tenants. Copy of the said assessment register is Annexure 6 to the writ petition in which it is mentioned that under order dated 27.3.2006 passed by administrator, change was effected due to the sale deed of 1.9.2005. Through the said deed plaintiff respondent no.2 had purchased the property. It is not clear that since when the name of Chunni Lal was added as occupant in the assessment register. However that entry even if it was continuing since 2001 would not make any difference as according to the own case of the plaintiff, Chunni Lal was in possession since long and municipal register for the purposes of collecting house tax contains the names of occupants. Whether occupant is tenant or subtenant whether tenancy/subtenancy is valid or not is not the concern of the municipal board while making entries in its assessment register. 9. The trial court had recorded the findings that defendant no.2 was not subtenant and he was carrying on business along with his elder brother since long time before. 10. far as documents of trade tax are concerned the entry was made after filing of the suit in question hence it was not of much value. 11. Brother is not included in the definition of the family given under Section 3(j) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 10. far as documents of trade tax are concerned the entry was made after filing of the suit in question hence it was not of much value. 11. Brother is not included in the definition of the family given under Section 3(j) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Supreme Court interpreting the said provision and Sections 12 and 25 of the Act has held in Ganesh Trivedi vs. Sunder Devi AIR 2002 SC 676 : 2002 SCFBRC 145 that if real brother of tenant is residing with him then it does not amount to subletting however if the tenant completely removes his possession from the tenanted accommodation and allows the same to be occupied by his real brother it would amount to subtenancy. Para 9 of the said authority is quoted below:- "9. The brother of a tenant is not included in the definition of 'family'. However, the present one is not a case where the tenant Suraj Prasad had during his lifetime taken up residence elsewhere and/or allowed the suit premises to be occupied by his brother. Deo Narain, being the real brother of late Suraj Prasad, the tenant, had come to stay with his brother and was residing along with him as such, even at the time of death of Suraj Prasad. It will not therefore be correct to say that applicability of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act was attracted to the suit premises during the lifetime of Suraj Prasad and a deemed vacancy and occurred. On the death of Suraj Prasad tenancy rights devolved on Deo Narain, he being the only heir. He too became 'tenant' within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 3. The decision of the High Court cannot, therefore, be faulted." 12. The petitioners had filed a certificate issued by Assistant Commissioner Trade Tax, Gonda dated 14.11.2008 copy of which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The certificate clearly mentioned that M/s Kishan Sweet Store was registered with the trade tax department with effect from 01.04.1984 and only since 01.04.2006 names of both Chunni Lal and Ashok Kumar were mentioned as its partners. Accordingly it is proved that until filing of the suit only Ashok Kumar was entered as proprietor of M/s Kishan Sweet Store. The certificate clearly mentioned that M/s Kishan Sweet Store was registered with the trade tax department with effect from 01.04.1984 and only since 01.04.2006 names of both Chunni Lal and Ashok Kumar were mentioned as its partners. Accordingly it is proved that until filing of the suit only Ashok Kumar was entered as proprietor of M/s Kishan Sweet Store. There is, therefore, no error in the findings recorded by the lower revisional court to the effect that only Ashok Kumar was the tenant and both the defendants were not joint tenants. Ashok Kumar could not show that he was having any concern with the business being carried out from the shop in dispute. He was having his separate shop. 13. Even otherwise partnership with non family member amounts to sub letting by virtue of Section 12(2) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 read with Section 25. The Supreme Court in Harish Tandon vs. A.D.M. Allahabad AIR 1995 SC 676 : 1995 (1) ARC 220 has held that partnership with son-in-law amounts to subletting and tenant is liable to eviction on that ground. Accordingly on the own showing of the petitioners, petitioner no.1 admitted petitioner no.2 as partner in business hence it amounted to sub letting. 14. If Chunni Lal had been joint tenant, since start of the tenancy, it would have been mentioned in the written agreement of 1991. Accordingly inference of subletting was wrongly refused to be drawn by the trial court. The lower revisional court was perfectly within its jurisdiction in reversing the said findings and recording the findings of subletting. 15. The revisional court did not reassess the evidence, it based its findings on proved and admitted facts particularly the most important admitted pieces of evidence i.e. the agreement of 1991 and subsequent partnership between both the brothers. In AIR 1996 SC 268 , Smt. Laxmi vs. C.S.Nagarkar Supreme Court set aside the findings of subletting recorded by all the courts below including the High Court. 16. Supreme Court in Reshma Singh vs. Raghubir Singh AIR 1999 SC 3087 (which was a case from Punjab) has held that subletting is a question of law and can be interfered with by the High Court in revision. 16. Supreme Court in Reshma Singh vs. Raghubir Singh AIR 1999 SC 3087 (which was a case from Punjab) has held that subletting is a question of law and can be interfered with by the High Court in revision. In the said case also brother was sitting on the shop however the Supreme Court held that it did not amount to subletting for the reason that against the tenant a criminal case had been launched and due to that reason he was absconding since long and it was his business which was being looked after by his brother hence it was not subletting. 17. In the instant case the tenant is running business in another shop and it has not been shown that it is in fact his business which is being run from the shop in dispute by his brother. 18. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. 19. However, tenants-petitioners are granted nine months time to vacate provided that:- 1. Within one month from today tenants file an undertaking before the JSCC/ Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gonda to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of nine months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of nine months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs.13,500/-( at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the JSCC/ Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gonda and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. 20. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants-petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs.13,500/- are not deposited within one month then tenants-petitioners shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.25,00/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 21. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs.13,500/- the house in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of nine months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month since after nine months till actual vacation. 21. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs.13,500/- the house in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of nine months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month since after nine months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and initiate execution proceedings. ____________