ORDER J. M. L. Sinha, J. - This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity and the correctness of the order dated 6-10-1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Agra. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition can briefly be stated as under. 3. The accommodation in question original belonged to one Smt. Gendo Devi, who bequeathed it in favour of the present petitioners. Respondents 2 to 9 were tenants in the various parts of the accommodation. On account of non-payment of excess water tax, the water connection in the accommodation was cut off. Respondent nos. 2 to 9, therefore, moved an application under section 27 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, praying that Vinod Kumar Jain, respondent No. 10, who allegedly became landlord of the accommodation in question be directed to restore the water connection. It may be mentioned at this very place that this application was moved about three years after the disconnection. 4. The application was opposed by Vinod Kumar Jain mainly on two grounds, namely, that he was collecting the rent of the accommodation in question on behalf of the petitioners, who were the landlords thereof, and secondly that it was wrong that the water connection had been unlawfully cut by him or by the present petitioners. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 6-10-1978, came to the conclusion that the landlords were responsible for water connection being cut off and, in that view of the matter, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application and directed respondent . 10 to restore water amenity within a week from the date of the order. It was also added by the Prescribed Authority in his order that, in case respondent No. 10 did not restore the water connection, respondent Nos. 2 to 9 could get it restored at the cost of the petitioners. We are told that subsequent thereto respondent Nos. 1 to 9 deposited the excess water charges and have got the water connection restored. The controversy that remains between the parties is whether respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are entitled to adjust the amount so paid against the rent payable by them. A perusal of the application that was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 9 deposited the excess water charges and have got the water connection restored. The controversy that remains between the parties is whether respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are entitled to adjust the amount so paid against the rent payable by them. A perusal of the application that was filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 9 under section 27 of Act XIII of 1972, as well as by the counter-affidavit filed in the present proceeding shows that the amount, for non-payment whereof the water connection was cut off, related to excess water tax/excess water charges. One of the questions that may arise for consideration is whether it was the responsibility of the landlords (petitioners) to pay the excess water charges. If the answer to the question be that it was not responsibility of the petitioners (landlords) to pay the excess water charges, it can by no means be held that the water connection was cut off on account of any unlawful act of the petitioners. In Nisar Ahmad and others v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur and others, A.I R. 1976 All. 438, one of the questions that came up for consideration was as to who is responsible for payment of excess water charges. It was observed : "It is well known that under the scheme of our Municipal Laws water tax is charged for normal water supplied through the pipes and taps installed in any house or building within the municipal or corporation area. Any excess water consumed over and above the existing normal limit his also to be paid for and it is called excess water charges." and again : "The whole of the accommodation was occupied by the tenants. It is the tenants, therefore, who actually consumed the excess water for their own benefit and enjoyment. The petitioners were, in no way benefited by the excess water consumed by the tenants of the accommodation in question." The Division Bench further observed:- "In the instant case even if we hold the landlord responsible for cutting off of the water connection, he can yet escape the rigorous of penal provisions of section 7-D by showing that it was for just or sufficient cause that he did it. As we have noticed above, it is not the case that the water connection was cut off for want of payment of water tax. As we have noticed above, it is not the case that the water connection was cut off for want of payment of water tax. It was cut off for non-payment of excess water charges. It were the respondents who consumed the excess water. In equity, they were responsible to pay for it as they enjoyed, in excess, the water which normally could be available to them under the contract of tenancy." From the above it is crystal clear that it is not the landlords' liability to pay the excess water charges/excess water tax but that it is the liability of the tenants. It was, therefore, for respondent Nos. 2 to 9 to have paid the excess water charges. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged that, in fact, the petitioners had got the building assessed at a very low amount and that when the respondents brought the correct facts to the notice of the municipal authorities, the annual rental value of the house in question was assessed at Rs. 4,152/-. Learned counsel for the respondents stressed that, if the correct facts had been placed before the municipal authorities by the petitioners from the beginning the annual rental value of the house would have been assessed at Rs. 4,152/- and that in that case nothing would have been payable as excess water charges as the permissible limit of water consumption would have been very much high. Learned counsel added that, consequently, it should be held that the water connection was cut off as a result of an unlawful act of the petitioners. We have given our careful thought to the contention but we regret our inability to accept It It is true that the assessment of the annual rental value was revised by the Nagar Mahapalika by an order dated 24th September. 1975, whereby the assessment was made at Rs. 4,152/-. According to sub-section (3) of section 213 of the Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, however, every alteration takes effect from the date on which the next instalment falls due. Consequently, it cannot successfully be urged on behalf of the respondents that the assessment of the annual rental value having been revised by the order dated 24th September, 1975, the petitioners became liable for payment of the excess water tax and, the water connection having been cut off on account of the non-payment thereof, the petitioners are liable for it. 6. 6. For the reasons given above, we cannot persuade ourselves to accept that it was the duty of the petitioners to pay excess water charges or excess water tax. On the contrary we find it was the duty of respondent Nos. 2 to 9, as tenants of the accommodation in question, to pay the same. Consequently, they could not ask for the restoration of water connection. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority suffers from an obeious error and cannot be maintained. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged that the petition is not maintainable. It was urged that in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority it was respondent no. 10 who had been impleaded as landlord of the accommodation in question and that the petitioners were not so impleaded. Learned counsel stressed that, since the petitioners were not parties in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, that have no locus standi to file the present petition. 8. It is true that in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority the petitioners were not parties and it was respondent No. 10 who was impleaded as landlord. It was, however, clearly stated by respondent No. 10 in his counter-affidavit that though he was collecting rent of the accommodation in question, the accommodation did not belong to him but belonged to the present petitioners. In his arguments before us also learned counsel for the respondents conceded that, in fact, respondent No. 10 was acting as the agent of the petitioners and it is the petitioners who are really affected by the impugned order. The fact that the accommodation in question belongs to the petitioners has not been controverted before us. It is apparent on a reading of the impugned order that it adversely affects the petitioners. Sri V. K. Jain, respondent no. 10, was acting in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority only as an agent of the present petitioners. We are, accordingly, unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition. 9. No other point was pressed. 10. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 6-10-1978 (Annexure 'III' to the petition) is hereby quashed. No order is made as to costs.