JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. This petition by the tenant has been filed challenging the order dated 19.01.2013, passed by the First Additional Judge Small Causes, Court No.18, Lucknow whereby the suit filed by the landlord for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages has been decreed. The petitioner has also challenged the revisional order passed by learned revisional court on 12.01.2015 dismissing the revision petition and upholding the judgment of the trial court. 3. The facts giving rise to the controversy involved in this case are that on 13.07.1962 a rent note was executed for tenanted portion of the building bearing No.86 consisting of four rooms, a verandah, courtyard, staircase, dochatti, latrine and bathroom, between late Manorama Devi and three tenants, namely, Kailesh Chandra Jain, Ram Chandra Gupta and Bala Prasad Gupta for a rent of Rs.75/- per month. 4. In October, 1972 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 146/- including Rs. 11/- as water tax. In the year 1981 a Miscellaneous Case No.167 of 1981 was filed by the partners of M/s. Bharat Kirana Store, under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The partners of the said firm who filed the said miscellaneous case were late Kailash Chandra Jain, Ram Chandra Gupta and Awadhesh Kumar Gupta and five other persons. On 31.01.1983, a notice of demand of arrears of rent for the period commencing from 01.02.1981 till 31.12.1982 and ejectment was sent which was served on the tenants on 02.02.1983. When the terms of the notice was not complied with, late Manorama Devi filed a suit on the grounds enumerated in Section 20 (2) (a) and (e) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. During pendency of the suit, Smt. Manorama Devi died and in her place her legal heirs were substituted as plaintiffs. The suit was contested by filing written statement stating therein inter alia that previously the rent was Rs. 75/- per month for a shop in the house and in the year 1976 late Manorama Devi and her husband agreed with the partners of the firm M/s. Bharat Kirana Store to consolidate the tenancy and enhance the rent of the shop and godown to Rs. 300/- per month which was accepted in the name of Lala Motilal Rastogi who realised the rent regularly. 300/- per month which was accepted in the name of Lala Motilal Rastogi who realised the rent regularly. The notice which formed the basis of the suit was said to be bad and the suit was also alleged to suffer from the vice of non-joinder of Lala Motilal Rastogi and other partners of M/s. Bharat Kirana Store. Learned trial court on the basis of pleadings available framed nine points for determination and decreed the same by the judgment and order dated 19.01.2013. The petitioner filed SCC Revision challenging the said judgment and order dated 19.01.2013 which too was dismissed by means of impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the revisional court. 5. Learned trial court while allowing the suit rejected the plea taken by the petitioner regarding combining the tenancies of the godown and the shop and inclusion of additional tenants and further gave finding that both tenancies were in respect of separate premises having separate landlords. In respect of shop late Manorama Devi was held to be landlord and in respect of godown Lala Motilal Rastogi was held to be landlord. The trial court further held that the defendants had sublet the premises and as such the provisions of Section 20 (2) (a) and (e) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were attracted in the case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken various grounds to impeach the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below. The first ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that since no relief was claimed in favour of the plaintiff of SCC suit and the relief was prayed for in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff who had already died, as such no relief could be granted in favour of dead person. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of The National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar Badri Kumar Jagad and others, reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1793 . He has, thus, submitted that the decision of a case cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. It has further been contended that any relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted and also that in absence of pleadings, evidence, if any, adduced by the parties cannot be considered. 7. He has, thus, submitted that the decision of a case cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. It has further been contended that any relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted and also that in absence of pleadings, evidence, if any, adduced by the parties cannot be considered. 7. In respect of the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, it has been brought to the notice of the court that the words ‘predecessor-in-interest’ in the prayer clause of the plaint were incorporated only by mistake and inadvertent occurrence of this phrase cannot be of any benefit to the petitioner as it is inconsequential. It is relevant to point at this juncture that an application under Order 22, Rule 3 , CPC was filed whereby substitution of the heirs of the deceased landlord-plaintiff, late Manorama Devi was sought. In the said application prayer was made that in the body of the plaint the words ‘predecessor-in-interest’ be permitted to be added wherever the word 'plaintiff' occurs. It was also prayed in the said application that in the plaint wherever the word 'plaintiff' occurs, the letter ‘s’ be added. Thus, from a perusal of the said application, it is apparent that no prayer for adding the words ‘predecessor-in-interest’ was made, however, the said words appear to have been incorporated by mistake. Thus, the words ‘predecessor-in-interest’ have occurred in the prayer clause of the plaint subsequently only when the amendments were incorporated at the time the application for substitution of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff late Manorama Devi was allowed. 8. In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take any benefit of said mistake. It is also noteworthy that this ground was neither raised by filing written statement nor while preferring the revision petition. The argument made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner is, thus, rejected. 9. 8. In my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take any benefit of said mistake. It is also noteworthy that this ground was neither raised by filing written statement nor while preferring the revision petition. The argument made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner is, thus, rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter argued that the original plaintiff who had instituted SCC suit did not appear in the witness box and as such in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1441 and by this Court in the case of Surya Prakash and others v. Ayodhya Prasad, reported in 2015 (33) LCD 1351 , original plaintiff’s non-appearance would give rise to an inference against him. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and does not offer himself/herself to be cross examined by the other side, the same gives rise to presumption that the case set up by him/her is not correct. 10. In reply to the aforesaid submission, it has strongly been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that original plaintiff late Manorama Devi was an old lady and was not in a position to walk and further that the proceedings of the suit were stayed in the year 1998 till 2009 and she died in the year 1998. He has also stated that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take any advantage by saying that the original plaintiff was not examined in the proceedings for the reason that the proceedings of the suit were stayed. 11. This Court finds itself in agreement to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents in this regard. On the death of original plaintiff, her sons were substituted as plaintiffs and Sri. Girish Chandra Rastogi, the substituted heir of late Manorama Devi was examined who made his statement on oath. 12. On substitution, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff late Manorama Devi stepped into her shoes so far as prosecuting the proceedings of the suit is concerned. Since Sri. Girish Chandra Rastogi was examined by appearing on her behalf, as such plea being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard also merits rejection which is hereby rejected. On substitution, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff late Manorama Devi stepped into her shoes so far as prosecuting the proceedings of the suit is concerned. Since Sri. Girish Chandra Rastogi was examined by appearing on her behalf, as such plea being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard also merits rejection which is hereby rejected. 13. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is in respect of notice dated 31.01.1983. It has been argued that it was not a valid notice as the same was not sent by the landlord late Motilal Rastogi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that findings recorded by the courts below on the issued nos.1 and 2 are perverse for the reason that tenancy of the shop and godown was combined by late Manorama Devi and her husband Motilal Rastogi into one tenancy and it was settled that the rent receipts would be issued by late Motilal Rastogi. He has stated that Motilal Rastogi issued rent receipts at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and these rent receipts have not been considered by learned trial court. 14. In reply to the said submission, it has been contended by Sri. Deepanshu Das, learned counsel for the respondents that since the landlord was late Manorama Devi, hence there was no occasion of any notice to be sent by late Motilal Rastogi. 15. Perusal of the judgment rendered by learned trial court reveals that the trial court has concluded that there is no evidence on record to conclude that the tenancies in respect of shop and godown were consolidated. In fact, since it was asserted by the petitioner that the tenancies were consolidated, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove the same. Learned courts below have concurrently concluded that the petitioner has failed to prove the combined tenancy and thus, the case put up by the petitioner in this respect has been rejected. 16. It is also worthwhile to notice that all the rent receipts are available on record in respect of the tenancy of the godown which was rented on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and no receipts of the rent of the tenanted shop which was rented on monthly rent of Rs. 146/- were brought on record. 17. 16. It is also worthwhile to notice that all the rent receipts are available on record in respect of the tenancy of the godown which was rented on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and no receipts of the rent of the tenanted shop which was rented on monthly rent of Rs. 146/- were brought on record. 17. In absence of any findings of combination of the tenancy, the question of sending a notice by late Motilal Rastogi does not arise, especially in the light of the categorical findings recorded by both the courts below that the shop and the godown were separate having separate landlords and different rents and separate rent agreements. 18. On the findings recorded by learned courts below on this issue, I am unable to agree with the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is, in any manner, perverse. 19. Sri. Ram Karan Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the notice dated 31.01.1983, which was the basis of the suit, has not been proved though the same was denied by the defendants. 20. As observed above, on account of stay, the suit could not proceed between 1998 to 2009 and in the meantime, the original plaintiff-late Manorama Devi died in the year 1998 and as such there was no possibility to get her examined. The statement of Sri. Girish Chandra Rastogi made before the learned court below to the effect that his mother never went to the court or in the office of an Advocate and that he had instituted the suit on behalf of her mother and further that he got the notice issued on her behalf does not come to the advantage of the petitioner for the reason that instructions to issue notice can always be given to an advocate on behalf of an old ailing lady by her son. For issuing notice a party is not necessarily required to visit the court premises or the chamber of a lawyer. The evidence on record in this case establishes that the notice was sent on the instructions of the original landlord-late Manorama Devi. The said instructions were communicated by her son to the advocate. The son was examined by the learned trial court and has proved the same. 21. The evidence on record in this case establishes that the notice was sent on the instructions of the original landlord-late Manorama Devi. The said instructions were communicated by her son to the advocate. The son was examined by the learned trial court and has proved the same. 21. It is relevant to point out that in the written statement receipt of notice has not been denied by the defendants. 22. While examining the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, it is relevant to observe that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Burmah Shell Oil Distributing now known as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Khaja Midhat Noor and others, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 44 , has held that law laid down does not require that sub-lessee need be made a party, if there is a valid termination of the lease. It was further held that in cases where the landlord institutes a suit on the basis of valid notice to quit, which is served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to evict the sub-lessee from the property in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. It has also been held that decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee as well. 23. In the aforesaid view of the matter, even non-joinder of other partners M/s. Bharat Kirana Store, Suraj Kumar, Anil Kumar, Sri. R.K. Jain, Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Sri. Jagesh Kumar will not vitiate the proceedings of the suit. The findings recorded by the learned trial court which has been approved by the learned revisional court that the suit did not suffer from vice of non-joinder of the necessary party is, thus, found correct. 24. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the original rent note (sarkhat) was not properly stamped and hence, it was not admissible in evidence. 25. In this regard, it may be noticed that learned trial court has considered the said issue in detail and has held that the said rent note was for a period of 11 months and hence, it was not required to be registered. 26. 25. In this regard, it may be noticed that learned trial court has considered the said issue in detail and has held that the said rent note was for a period of 11 months and hence, it was not required to be registered. 26. In respect of acceptance of photocopy of the said rent note as admissible in evidence, the finding has been recorded that the original rent note was misplaced from the record of the trial court and it is in these circumstances that the photocopy of the same has been placed on record and thus, rent note was proved as per law. 27. Yet another submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that since fresh tenancy came into existence, the original rent note of the year 1962 will have no application. In this regard, I may only observe that since the petitioner has failed to prove that it was a case of combined tenancy, hence the said submission is baseless. In respect of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not a case of sub tenancy, it is noticeable that the case set up by the petitioner in this regard is based on the receipts issued by late Motilal Rastogi. It has been established by the evidence available on record that the said receipts were issued by late Motilal Rastogi in respect of the tenancy concerning godown and not in respect of tenancy concerning the shop. Since the very inception the tenancy has been in the individual names of Sri. Kailash Chandra Jain, Ram Chandra Gupta and Bala Prasad and not in the name of either the firm M/S. Bharat Kirana Store or any of its partners or any other person. 28. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Celina Coelho Pereira and others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others, reported in 2009 (27) LCD 1740 also does not come to his rescue. 28. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Celina Coelho Pereira and others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others, reported in 2009 (27) LCD 1740 also does not come to his rescue. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in order to prove subletting as a ground for eviction, two ingredients are to be established, (1) parting with possession of tenancy by tenant in favour of a third party and (2) that such parting with possession has been done without consent of the landlord and in lieu of compensation or rent. However, it has further been held in this case that initial burden of proving subletting, though is on the landlord but once the landlord proves that third party is in exclusive possession and the tenant has no legal possession of the premises, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove the nature of occupation of the third party and the tenant continues to hold the legal possession in tenanted premises. Learned trial court in this regard has given categorical finding in favour of the landlord that the original tenants inducted sub-tenant in the shop in question and as such the onus shifted on the petitioner to disapprove the sub tenancy. However, the defendant has utterly failed to discharge the onus. In this view of the matter, the said argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 29. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of discussions made above, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment rendered by the courts below by observing that findings recorded in the impugned orders are in any manner perverse. 30. Resultantly, the writ petition fails which is hereby dismissed. 31. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.