The judgment establishes the legal principles related to the liability of tenants to pay rent, house, and water tax, as well as the consequences of default in payment, under the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and Act No. 13 of 1972.

Anjani Kumar, J.—This revision was heard by me on 5th August, 2004 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties the revision was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons :

2. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act is directed against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 17th April, 1999, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlords was decreed for eviction and arrears of rent.

3. According to plaint allegations, the plaintiff-landlords let out the premises in question to the applicant-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 600 plus house and water tax. On 30th May, 1981, a rent deed was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant, according to which the premises in question was let out with effect from 1st January, 1981, at the rate of Rs. 600 per month plus house and water tax. The tenant-defendant has paid rent up to 30th July, 1988 and the water tax was paid only upto 1981-84. Thereafter, neither rent nor house or water tax was paid by the tenant. Therefore, the landlord-plaintiffs served a notice dated 21st August, 1991, terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent and damages and further requesting to vacate the premises within 30 days. This notice, according to plaintiff, was served on 3rd September, 1991, but since the defendant has not vacated the premises nor paid rent and damages, thus the suit.

4. The defendant in his written statement disputed the title/ ownership of the plaintiffs of the premises in question. Therefore, it was pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs that this is additional ground for eviction of the applicant-tenant from the premises in question. The defendants filed written statement in which it was admitted that the defendant was tenant at the rate of Rs. 600 per month but liability regarding payment of house and water tax was not admitted. It is also admitted by the tenant that he is tenant since 1980 and since then he is regularly paying the rent. The defendant further set up the case that defendant is tenant since the time of late Dr. Tara Chand when he was alive and that Dr. Tara Chand died in the year 1983 leaving behind two sons, his widow Arvind Chaudhary. The premises in question belongs to Joint Hindu Family of which Dr. Tara Chand was the karta. Therefore, the plaintiffs, who are sons of late Dr. Tara Chand, cannot be said to be only landlord or owner of the premises as widow of Dr. Tara Chand has not filed the present suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues :—

“(1) Kya keval vadigan vivadit dukan ke landlord hain ?

(2) Kya prativadi dinank 1.4.1981 se vivadit dukan men kirayedar hai ? Athwa varsh 1980 se kirayedar hai ?

(3) Kya kiraydari prarambh hote samay vivadit dukan par U. P. Adhiniyam 13, 1972 ke pravidhan lagu hote thhe tatha kya avantan ke abhav men kirayedari avaidh evam nishprabhavi hai ?

(4) Kya Shrimati Arvind Chaudhary is vaad men avashyak pakshkar hai ? Yadi han to iska prabhav.

(5) Kya prativadi ne kiraya ada karne men chook (default) kiya hai ? Yadi han to uska prabhav.

(6) Kya prativadi ne vadigan ke swamitva se inkar kiya hai ? Yadi han to kya us adhar par bina notice deye vadigan niskashan kara pane ke adhikari hain ?

(7) Kya vaad nibandhan evam maun svikriti ke siddhant se badhit hai ?

(8) Kya prativadi ne jalkar evam grihkar san 1984-85 se ada nahin kiya hai ?

(9) Vadigan kya anutosh pane ke adhikari hain ?

5. The trial court in its lengthy judgment which runs in almost 49 typed pages discussed the evidence and arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as the defendant and arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs are landlords and even if their mother is also one of the landlords, the suit cannot be rejected only on the ground that one of the landlords has not joined in the suit. The trial court also recorded a finding that the rent is Rs. 600 per month and since the provisions of Act No. 13