Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the landlord against the erstwhile tenant Sri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, and his heirs i.e. his widow, sons and daughters arrayed as respondent No. 1 to 1/7 and also against Gujarat Narmada Fertilizer Corporation Ltd., Regional Office, Agra, respondent No. 2.

2. The revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 1.10.2011 passed by the Judge Small Causes/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Etah, in Small Causes Suit No. 04 of 1998 Praveen Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta and another) rejecting the suit for eviction filed by the tenant.

3. The facts necessary for a decision of the controversy are to the effect that the revisionist being owner of godown surrounded by a boundary wall (hereinafter referred to as a suit property) rented it out to Sri Jagdish Prasad Gupta, since deceased, on monthly rent of Rs. 13,000/- excluding taxes and electricity charges. It has been contended that when the respondent No. 1 failed to fulfill the conditions of the tenancy, the revisionist gave a legal notice on 20.2.1998 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, mentioning therein that the tenant had been in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1998 and had also caused damage to the suit property and despite repeated requests had not carried out the repairs thereof, and had also not paid Rs. 7,680 i.e. the expenses relating to some building materials used for repairs. The revisionist did not wish to continue the tenancy of the respondent No. 01 and therefore, directed him to pay the arrears of rent as well as Rs. 7,680/- alongwith interest thereon, and vacate the premises within 30 days. On failure to pay and to vacate damages at the rate of 25,000/- per month would be payable for which the Landlord would have to institute a civil suit in the competent Court and the cost of litigation would also be payable.

4. After receiving the said legal notice, the respondent No. 1 agreed to fulfil the terms of tenancy and paid rent of the suit property for the month of January & February 1998. However, the respondent No. 1 again defaulted in March 1998 which forced the revisionist to give a legal notice on 17.7.1998, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On failure to deposit rent and to vacate the premises and also for subletting thereof to respondent No. 2, Small Causes Suit No. 04 of 1998 was instituted with a prayer for ejectment and possession of the suit property as well as arrears of the rent and damages alongwith interest. The respondent No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement on 22.12.1991. The application was filed by the revisionist controverting the allegations made by the respondent No. 1. However, it has been submitted that the suit was dismissed by the learned Court below vide judgment and order dated 1.10.2011.

5. Sri Anadi Krishna Narayan, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted before this Court that after taking evidence, five issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. Issue No. 1 was to the effect as to whether the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the suit property. It was held by the learned Trial Court that since the agreed rate of rent was more than Rs. 2000/- per month, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was clearly not applicable. Issue No. 2 related to whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of co-owners to the suit property not being impleaded as plaintiffs nor such co-owners issuing notice jointly to the tenant to vacate The learned Trial Court placing reliance upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006 (SCC) ALR 506 and M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Company v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, AIR 2004 SC 1321, held that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of the tenant based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners whose con