JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. -- Pursuant to order of date passed on Restoration Application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. 2. As requested and agreed by learned Counsels for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record. 4. This is landlord's Writ petition. Petitioner filed Small Cause Suit No. 52 of 1999 seeking ejectment from property in dispute, disclosed at bottom of plaint and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of subletting and material alteration reducing value of property. 5. Suit was contested by defendants. Trial Court formulated following issues: %hnd1%^^1- D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk fdjk;s dh vnk;xh esa pwd dh x;h\^^%hnd2% "1. Whether the defendants have defaulted in payment of rent?" %hnd1%^^2- D;k izfroknhx.k /kkjk 20 ¼4½ vf/kfu;e la[;k 13@1972 dk ykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\^^%hnd2% "2. Whether the defendants are entitled to benefit from section 20 (4) of Act 13/1972?" %hnd1%^^3- D;k uksfVl fnukafdr 16-02-90 voS/kkfud gS\^^%hnd2% "3. Whether the notice dated 16.02.1990 is illegal?" %hnd1%^^4- D;k izfroknhx.k ds }kjk fookfnr lEifRr esa f'kdeh fdjk;snkj fcuk btktr oknh crk;k x;k gS\^^%hnd2% "4. Whether the defendants have let the disputed property to a sub-tenant without permission of the plaintiff?" %hnd1%^^5- D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk fcuk btktr oknh fookfnr lEifRr esa eSfVfj;y vkYVsª'ku fd;k x;k gS\^^%hnd2% "5. Whether the defendants have effected material alteration in the disputed property without permission of the plaintiff?" %hnd1%^^6- vuqrks"k\**%hnd2% "6. Relief?" (English Translation by Court) 6. Issues 4 and 5 both were answered against plaintiff-petitioner. While answering Issue no. 4, Trial Court referred to petitioner's own admission in another Suit No. 55 of 1981 which shows that boundary mentioned in the plaint was not correctly described and therefore, disputed property was not described properly. Relief?" (English Translation by Court) 6. Issues 4 and 5 both were answered against plaintiff-petitioner. While answering Issue no. 4, Trial Court referred to petitioner's own admission in another Suit No. 55 of 1981 which shows that boundary mentioned in the plaint was not correctly described and therefore, disputed property was not described properly. The finding of Trial Court read as under: %hnd1%^^tks iwoZ esa nkok 55 @81 oknh }kjk ;ksftr fd;k x;k gS mlds okn i= dh udy 64x i=koyh ij miyC/k gS mlesa lEifRr uxjikfydk la[;k 2@880@37 esa lR;iky uked O;fDr dks f'kdeh fdjk;snkj crkuk vkjksfir fd;k x;k gS vkSj mDr lEifRr esa ,d pcwrjk Vhu iks'k e; lgu o dksBjh nqdku ds ihNs gksuk crk;k x;k FkkA lEifRr dk tks fooj.k fn;k x;k Fkk mlesa iwjc dh vksj [kkyh txg] if'pe esa dksVZ jksM] mRrj esa xyh vke vkSj nf{k.k esa izkbZosV jkLrk vafdr fd;k x;k FkkA tcfd okn i= ds fooj.k ds vuqlkj iwjc esa fookfnr lEifRr vafdr gksuh pkfg;s FkkA vius jsIyhds'ku ds iSjk&6 esa oknh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr tk;nkn dh rQlhy ds laca/k esa y?kqokn la[;k 55@81 esa mlds vf/koDrk dks xyrh yx x;h Fkh vkSj mlus =qfVo'k 2@880@37 ds ihNs dksBjh esa lR;iky uked O;fDr dks f'kdeh fdjk;snkj gksuk vafdr dj fn;k Fkk vkSj blls ;g ckr lekIr ugha gks tkrh fd lEifRr uxjikfydk uEcj 2@880@36 mDr lEifRr ds ihNs fLFkr ugha gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh esa ugha gSA vius okn i= ds lkFk dksbZ uD'kk utjh fookfnr lEifRr dk oknh dh vksj ls is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g ckr Li"V gks tkrh gS fd fookfnr lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa tks fooj.k fn;k x;k gS og vLi"V gS vkSj okn i= bl lEcU/k esa osx gSA bl ckr dks fl) djus dh ftEesnkjh oknh dh gS D;k&2 vkSj fdruh&2 lEifRr ftldks uxjikfydk la[;k&2@880@35 o 36 izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh esa fdjk;kuke 78x ds vuqlkj nh x;h vkSj ml lEifRr dh lhek;sa D;k gSaA oknh ;g ckr fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd ftl Hkkx ij f'kdeh fdjk;snkj clkuk tkuk crk;k tkrk gS vFkok esVhfj;y vkYVs~'ku fd;k tkuk vkjksfir fd;k x;k gS og lEifRr nqdku uEcj 2@880@36 dk Hkkx gksA dsoy okn la[;k 55@81 esa izfroknh la[;k 2 dfFkr f'kdeh fdjk;snkj ds ,Meh'ku ds vk/kkj ij ;g ckr lkfcr ugha ekuh tk ldrh fd ftl txg dfFkr lR;iky ukd O;fDr dkfct gS og izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh okyh lEifRr gS D;ksafd izLrqr dsl esa mDr lR;iky f'kdeh fdjk;snkj dks] ftldh ,Meh'ku dk ykHk oknh mBkuk pkgrk gS] i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA fu"d"kZr;k ;g ckr lkfcr ugha gS fd izfroknhx.k }kjk fookfnr lEifRr esa lR;iky uked O;fDr dks f'kdeh fdjk;snkj vkckn fd;k x;k vkSj ftl txg dfFkr lR;iky uke O;fDr f'kdeh rkSj ij dkfct gS og fookfnr lEifRr dk Hkkx gSA rn~uqlkj ;g okn fcUnq okn i= ds vLi"V ,oa osx gksus ds dkj.k oknh ds fo: ) izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA**%hnd2% "Suit no. 55/81 has earlier been filed by the plaintiff, a copy whereof is available on record as paper no. 64C alleging a person namely Satyapal to be a sub-tenant in property no. 2/880/37, and stating a platform (chabutra) with tin shed including a courtyard and a small room (kothri) to be there behind the shop. The description of the property which has been given show a vacant space to the east, a court road to the west, a public street to the north and a private path to the south; whereas as per the details given in the plaint, the disputed property should have been in the east. The plaintiff has in para 6 to his replication admitted that his counsel had in Small Cause No. 55/81 committed a mistake as to details of the disputed property and had mistakenly shown a person namely Satyapal to be a sub-tenant in the small room (kothri) situated behind the property no. 2/880/37 and this does not belie the fact that property number 2/880/36 is not situated behind the said property and is not under the tenancy of the defendants. No sitemap of the disputed property has been annexed by the plaintiff to his plaint. In these circumstances, it is clear that the description which has been given in respect of the disputed property is ambiguous and the plaint is vague in this respect. The onus to prove this rests on the plaintiff as to what bits and how much of the properties shown by numbers 2/880/35 and 36 were given in the tenancy of the defendants as per the rent agreement being paper no. 78C and as to what the boundaries of such properties are. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the portion which is stated to have been sublet or materially altered is part of the property being shop no. 2/880/36. Merely on the basis of admission in suit no. 55/81 by the defendant no. 2 - the alleged sub-tenant, it cannot be taken to be established that the portion in possession of a person namely Satyapal is the property under tenancy of the defendants because the said Satyapal, sub-tenant, whose admission the plaintiff wants to benefit from, has not been arrayed as a party in the present case. 55/81 by the defendant no. 2 - the alleged sub-tenant, it cannot be taken to be established that the portion in possession of a person namely Satyapal is the property under tenancy of the defendants because the said Satyapal, sub-tenant, whose admission the plaintiff wants to benefit from, has not been arrayed as a party in the present case. It is not conclusively proved that a person namely Satypal was made a sub-tenant in the disputed property by the defendants and that the portion occupied by a person namely Satypal as a sub-tenant is part of the disputed property. On account of the plaint being ambiguous and vague, this issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff." (English Translation by Court) 7. Similarly, issue-5 was answered against plaintiff. Revision was filed by plaintiff being Revision No. 24 of 2000 which has also been dismissed by Revisional Court vide judgment dated 24.02.2006 recording concurrent finding with Trial Court. The aforesaid findings and the admission in para 6 of replication with respect to otherwise admission of wrong mention of boundary in Original Suit No. 55 of 1981 is a fact which is not disputed before this Court also. 8. Since findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below which has not been shown perverse or contrary to record in any manner, and, on the contrary, the same was based on petitioner's own admission, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order warranting interference. 9. Dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.