Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of suit for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent instituted by respondent No. 1 against him in the form of SCC suit No. 2 of 1984. JSCC/Civil Judge, Pilibhit decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 24.10.1986. Against the said judgment and decree tenant-petitioner filed SCC revision No. 45 of 1986 which was dismissed on 7.10.1989 hence this writ petition. The first dispute in between the parties was regarding rate of rent. Landlord asserted that it was Rs. 75/- per month however, tenant asserted that it was Rs. 50/- per month. Both the Courts below decided the said question in favour of the tenant and held that the rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month.

3. The other contention raised by the tenant was that apart from him Mohd. Yusuf Ali also was the tenant. However, the contention was not accepted by the Courts below. Even otherwise no effect will be made on the decree for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent even if it is held that Mohd. Yusuf Ali was also joint tenant. The Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. A.D.M., AIR 1995 SC 676 and A.C. Juker v. K.P. Mantri, AIR 2001 SC 2251, has held that after the death of tenant his heirs inherit the tenancy jointly and notice of termination of tenancy given to one of the joint tenants is sufficient similarly decree for eviction passed against one joint tenant is binding upon the other non impleaded joint tenants.

4. Petitioner had also pleaded that notice was invalid and that on 8.2.1976 respondent No. 1 owner landlord had entered into an agreement for sale with the petitioner and his brother Mohd. Yusuf Ali for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- had been paid hence after execution of the agreement relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist. Tenant also pleaded that afterwards he paid Rs. 8,000/- more however, this version of payment of Rs. 8,000/- was dis-believed by both the Courts below.

5. In respect of agreement for sale both the Courts below held that through the said agreement relationship of landlord and tenant did not come to an end and that tenant did not file suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and that he could not show that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. As far as notice is concerned both the Courts below held that the notice was invalid as through the notice tenancy was terminated in presenti. However, both the Courts below held that as tenant had denied the title of the landlord by asserting that after agreement neither he remained tenant nor respondent No. 1 remained landlord hence notice was not necessary.

6. The above two points regarding necessity and validity of notice and effect of agreement for sale have been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition. Third point has also been argued to the effect that in any case Rs. 5,000/- had been found to have been paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 hence petitioner could not be held to be defaulter and unpaid rent should have been adjusted in the said amount. Learned Counsel for the respondent refuted all the arguments and supported the judgment of the Court below. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 also argued that notice was perfectly valid and the Courts below committed error of law in holding otherwise. Copies of notice dated 15.10.1983 and agreement for sale dated 8.2.1976 were filed before the Court below; their copies have also been filed alongwith supplementary counter affidavit dated 9.7.2007 filed by the petitioner on 18.7.2007.

7. First I take up the question of validity of notice. Both the Courts below have placed reliance upon a Division Bench authority of this Court reported in AIR 1974 All 402, Abdul Zalil v. Hazi Abdul Zalil. In my opinion the Courts below did not correctly interpret the said authority. The second paragraph of the