Judgment. - The petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent due to her under a rent deed executed in her favour on 17th November 1946 by the two defendants in the suit, father and daughter. The 1st defendant, the father admitted the claim, but the 2nd defendant, the daughter, pleaded that she was living with her father in the suit house from December, 1946, that she was living in Vellore till December, 1947, and that she vacated the house and went to Madras. The learned Small Cause Judge at Vellore held that the 2nd defendant also joined in the execution of the rental agreement. The position of the 2nd defendant was therefore that of a joint tenant along with the 1st defendant. But he held that the 2nd defendant was not liable for the rent, because she vacated the premises on or about 9th October, 1947 and had intimated the fact to the plaintiff. The learned Judge was clearly in error. The fact that the 2nd defendant purported to vacate the premises on 9th October, 1947, would not avail her unless the plaintiff had been put in possession of the premises. Till that is done she as a joint lessee would be liable so long as the lessor has not obtained vacant possession of the premises. The law is thus stated in Mulla’s Commentaries on the Transfer of Property Act, 3rd Edn., 1949, at page 702: “If one of two joint lessees fails to restore vacant possession to the landlord, both will be liable.” The authority for this proposition is to be found in Christy v. Tancred1where Parke B., observed as follows: “It is clear that the original parties to this agreement continued liable for the rent as tenants holding over, unless there was a new agreement by the landlord to accept other persons as his tenants in their stead.” The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the decree of the learned Judge in so far as the plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd defendant was dismissed is hereby set aside. The plaintiff will have a decree also against the 2nd defendant. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.