JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The suit for eviction was instituted by petitioner-landlord on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting. The Trial Court recorded a finding of fact against petitioner on the question of default in payment of rent by tenant but in respect of sub-letting,? recorded finding in favour of petitioner-landlord and decreed suit vide judgment dated 10.05.2006, whereagainst the respondents-tenants preferred SCC Revision No. 09 of 2006 which has been allowed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahar vide judgment dated 08.10.2007. 3. The Revisional Court has found that petitioner-landlord has miserably failed to prove sub-letting though onus lay upon him and on the basis of mere vague statements and weakness of defence evidence, the Trial Court has decreed suit on the ground of sub-letting, which was wholly illegal.? This Court also finds that there was no evidence except of oral statement of petitioner himself as PW-1 and a vague statement of PW-2, that too self contradictory. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on oral statements of DW-1 and 2 but that will not entitle petitioner to claim relief unless he proves his case on his own. It is well settled that a plaintiff, unless proves his case on his own, cannot get relief on the basis of weakness in defence evidence. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.