JUDGMENT : Vivek Kumar Birla, J. 1. List of fresh cases has been revised. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. 2. On earlier occasion also on 4.7.2018 no one was present on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition even in the revised call, however, in the interest of justice, case was directed to be taken up today but again no is present to press this petition. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I proceed to consider the petition on merits. 4. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 5.5.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in SCC Revision No. 6 of 2017 and the judgment and order dated 16.2.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Fast Track Court, Muzaffar Nagar in SCC No. 12 of 2008. 5. The grounds taken in the present petition is that the defendant no. 4-petitioner filed his written statement and denied the plaint allegations. He further asserted that the petitioner has no concern with the shop in dispute. It is next stated that M/s Balaji Garments shop is being run by its proprietor Vikas Kumar and the petitioner has no concern with the garments shop. The petitioner filed additional written statement and stated therein that Deepak Kumar son of Pradeep Kumar is carrying on the garments shop in the name and style of M/s. Balaji Garments. The petitioner filed his objections before the Court and the petitioner is not sub-tenant in the disputed shop and therefore, the judgments and decree against him are wholly, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 6. I have perused the record. 7. A SCC suit was filed for rent and ejectment and also on the ground that defendants no. 1 to 3 created sub-tenancy in favour of the defendant no. 4 in an unauthorized manner. A notice dated 25.3.2008 was given, which was served on defendants on 28.3.2008. The provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present case. Summons were issued to defendants no. 1 to 3 but even after sufficient service of notice they did not appear before the Court below and did not file their written statement and thereafter suit was proceeded ex-parte against them. The defendant no. 4 filed his written statement and denied allegations made in the plaint. Summons were issued to defendants no. 1 to 3 but even after sufficient service of notice they did not appear before the Court below and did not file their written statement and thereafter suit was proceeded ex-parte against them. The defendant no. 4 filed his written statement and denied allegations made in the plaint. He stated in reply of the notice that he is not tenant in the property in question and a business in the name of M/s Balaji Garments whose proprietor is Vikas Kumar and is doing business on the property in question, which has no concern with the answering defendant. Certain amendments were carried out in the plaint. Thereafter, in the additional written statement it was asserted that in the shop in question business in the name of M/s Balaji Garments is being carried on by Deepak Kumar s/o Sri Pradeep Kumar. Sri Deepak Kumar filed an application for impleadment. 8. Six issues were framed by the trial Court. Issue no. 1 is as to whether defendants no. 1 to 3 are the tenants in the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 350/-. Issue no. 2 is as to whether the provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 are applicable or not. Issue no. 3 is as to whether the defendants no. 1 to 3 have committed default in payment of rent and issue no. 4 is whether the defendants no. 1 to 3 have created sub tenancy in favour of the defendant no. 4. Issue no. 5 is regarding the validity of notice dated 25.3.2008. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff-landlord. While deciding the issue of sub tenancy, the defence taken up by the defendants was taken into account. In written statement, it was noticed that the petitioner herein has taken a plea that business in the name of M/s Balaji Garments is being carried on by one Vikas Kumar with whom he has no concern. In cross-examination he admitted that Vikas Kumar is his son and he further admitted that Deepak Kumar s/o Pradeep Kumar is his bhanja (maternal nephew) and that Vikas Kumar is carrying on business in the shop in question. It was found that in the assessment, which was filed, the name "proprietor Deepak Kumar" was added by interpolation after issuance of certified copy. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed. 9. It was found that in the assessment, which was filed, the name "proprietor Deepak Kumar" was added by interpolation after issuance of certified copy. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed. 9. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the defendants and have found that sub tenancy has been created. 10. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Flora @ Nahoum and Others vs. Harish Ali Lasker, 2018 (1) ARC 495 (SC), it has been held that in case sub letting is proved, it is not necessary to go into the other grounds. Once concurrent findings have been recorded by the Courts below, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the judgment and orders impugned herein. 11. All such findings have been appreciated on the basis of documentary and oral evidence on record and therefore, I do not find any legal infirmity in the orders impugned herein. 12. A reference may be made in this regard to the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 according to which no interference is warranted in such findings of fact. It is also settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is akin to revisional jurisdiction and the scope of interference in the findings of fact is also very limited. 13. Present petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. 14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court below within three days by FAX.