The main legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of co-tenants for rent payment, the validity of the notice under the Transfer of Property Act, and the consequences of default in rent payment.

RAKESH SHARMA, J.-Since in both the revisions common controversy is involved, therefore both are being decided by a common order, which is being passed in Civil Revision No. 18 of 2005.

2. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashish Srivastava for the revisionists Shri Ram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal and Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Agarwal for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in Civil Revision No. 18 of 2005 and Shri Manu Khare learned Counsel for the revisionist Shanti Prakash Goyal and Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tarun Agarwal for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in Civil Revision No. 163 of 2009

3. This is a tenants' Civil Revision preferred under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, (Special Judge, E.C. Act), Allahabad in Suit No. 12 of 1999 jitendra Kumar Gupta v. Shanti Prakash Goyal and two others, exercising powers as Judge, Small Causes Court allowing the suit filed by the landlord, respondent No. 1 herein.

4. The Judge Small Causes Court has decreed the suit and directed to pay the arrears of rent to the plaintiff (respondent herein) for the period when the rent had remain unpaid and the revisionist-tenants has been ordered to be evicted from the premises due to default in making payment of rent. The revisionist-tenants were directed to handover their possession over the rented premises within 30 days. The landlord has further sought a decree for ejectment of the tenant-defendants (revisionists herein) from the ground floor of House No. 104, Zero Road (K.P. Kakkar Road) in Allahabad city. The plaintiff Jintendra Kumar Gupta (respondent No 1) claimed himself to be owner-landlord of the aforesaid building situate at Zero Road, Allahabad city. Initially, the ground floor portion of the premises was rented out to Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal, father of tenants-revisionists, who was carrying out his private practice from the medical pharmacy. After the death of Dr. Keshav Swaroop Goyal, the original tenant, his three sons namely Shanti Prakash Goyal, Shreeram Goyal and Dr. Gopal Krishna Goyal became co-tennats of the pharmacy. Initially the monthly rent for the rented portion of the building was Rs.300/- per month upto December, 1997. As per the landlord-respondent No.1 on account of installation of various other business activities, the rent was mutually enhanced from Rs. 300/- per month to Rs. 3600/- per month w.e.f. 1st January, 1998. The defendants-tenants (revisionists herein) were carrying out business in the name of Goyal Pharmacy. The X-ray machine plant was installed and other medical consultancy activities were going on from the premises. The revisionists paid rent upto 31.12.1998, sometimes in cash and sometimes through an account payee cheques, receipts for which were issued by the landlord. Later on the tenant (revisionists) defaulted in making payment of the rent from 1st January, 1998 to 31st May, 1999. They were served with legal notice dated 19.6.1999 as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The arrears of rent was demanded from the tenants by the said notice dated 19.6.1999. The landlord had terminated the tenancy of the tenants (revisionists herein) on the expiry of 30 days period stipulated. According to the landlord, notice dated 19.6.1999 was personally served upon the tenants (revisionist herein), but instead of paying due rent to the landlord, they made an illegitimate claim and disputed the arrears of rent in an illegal manner and. thus rendered themselves liable to ejectment. Since the rent of the premises in suit was Rs. 3600/- per month, as such provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply in the present case. The landlord has indicated details of payment made by the tenants in para 9 of the plaint. Specific dates when the rent was tendered by the tenants to the landlor