JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The question raised in this petition is whether the non-4 residential premises in dispute can be deemed to have fallen vacant within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. XIII of 1972. The petitioner is landlord of the shop in dispute. 2. In January, 1974 the landlord moved an application for release of the shop in question in his favour on the allegation that Barati Lal was tenant of the shop and he allowed it to be occupied now by Salik Ram who is admittedly-the nephew of Barati Lal. In the application, Annexure 1, Barati Lal was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 1 and Salik Ram was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 2. Barati Lal and Salik Ram filed a joint written statement, a copy of which is Annexure No. 2. In Paragraph 10 it was stated that there was joint Hindu family and Barati Lal was the karta of the said joint Hindu family. He continued to be the karta of the said family. It was stated in Paragraph 11 that Salik Ram was also a member of the said Joint Hindu family and was conducting business as a member of the Joint Hindu family. It was further stated that on account of Barati Lal becoming old Salik Ram had now started sitting at the shop in which the joint family business is being carried on. On behalf of the petitioner landlord it was argued that on the facts of the case the shop in question would be deemed to have fallen vacant. The reliance was placed upon Section 12(1)(b) of the Act The Additional City Magistrate, Rent Control, agreed with the plea raised on behalf of the landlord and held the premises to have fallen vacant. This order of the Additional City Magistrate was challenged by Barati Lal and Salikram before the learned District Judge, Lucknow. The revision came up for hearing before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Lucknow who by his judgment and order, dated 9-12-1976, allowed the same and held that the premises was not vacant. It may be mentioned that before the learned Additional District Judge additional evidence was filed on behalf of Salik Ram and Barati Lal. The revision came up for hearing before the learned Second Additional District Judge, Lucknow who by his judgment and order, dated 9-12-1976, allowed the same and held that the premises was not vacant. It may be mentioned that before the learned Additional District Judge additional evidence was filed on behalf of Salik Ram and Barati Lal. This additional evidence comprised of the order of assessment made by the Income Tax Authorities for the assessment year 1973-74 ended on 31st March, 1973 in respect of the business run under the name and style of Badlu Ram Sukuru Ram. An affidavit was also filed. This additional evidence has been relied upon by learned Additional District Judge for recording the finding that there was Joint Hindu family of which Barati Lal was the karta. On this basis the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the premises could not be said to have fallen vacant under Section 12(1)(b). 3. The above finding of the learned District Judge has been challenged by the petitioner through the present writ petition. On behalf of the petitioner it was argued by his learned Counsel Sri H.N. Tilhari that in their written statement Salik Ram and Barati Lal had admitted the petitioner's allegation that the tenancy was in the name of Barati Lal, and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned District Judge to investigate as to whether there existed Joint Hindu family of which Barati Lal may be the karta. In Paragraph 2 of his application the petitioner stated that Barati Lal was the tenant of the premises in question on payment of Rs. 50 per month and he himself was the landlord. This paragraph was replied to by saving that the contents were admitted. However, the plea raised on behalf of a party has to be considered on the basis of the averments made in various paragraphs of its statement. Even after admitting the avernments made in Paragraph 2 of the application Barati Lal and Salik Ram Paragraphs 10 and 11 of their written statement pleaded that there was a Joint Hindu family of which Barati Lal was karta and as karta he was controlling the business looked after by different members of the Joint Hindu family. Even after admitting the avernments made in Paragraph 2 of the application Barati Lal and Salik Ram Paragraphs 10 and 11 of their written statement pleaded that there was a Joint Hindu family of which Barati Lal was karta and as karta he was controlling the business looked after by different members of the Joint Hindu family. Thus, on the basis of the avernments made in Paragraph 2 of the written statement alone it cannot be said that it was not the case of Barati Lal and Salik Ram that there was Joint Hindu family of which Barati Lal was the karta. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge did not commit any manifest error when he proceeded to consider the plea raised in the written statement to the effect that there was joint Hindu family of which Barati Lal was the karia. It is not disputed between the parties that before the Trial Authority the Income Tax Assessment Order which, had been relied upon by the Revisional Court had not been filed but it was filed before the Revisional Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that this additional evidence could not be entertained at the revisional stage. The Act does not contain any prohibition against entertainment of additional evidence at the revisional or appellate stage. The entertainment of additional evidence was, thus, in the discretion of the Revisional Court and that discretion could not be said to have been improperly exercised inasmuch as the documents filed had bearing on the plea already raised in the written statement. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the submission of the learned Counsel has no substance. 4. The material controversy now centres round the interpretation of the terms 'tenant' and 'family' as defined in Section 3 (a) and (g) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel for the opposite parties the tenant is the person by whom rent is payable and in the case of joint Hindu family rent although paid by the karta is deemed to have been paid on behalf of the joint family and, therefore, each member of the joint family will come within the definition of the term tenant'. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the plea of Hindu Law cannot be imported in cases arising under the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The learned Counsel argued that the terms 'tenant' and 'family' having been defined in the Act itself, their scope cannot be extended by reference to personal laws of the landlord and tenant. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The fallacy in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner will become evident by this illustration. If the premises has been taken on rent by the karta, the rent will of course be paid by the karta and the rent receipt may also be issued in the name of the karta. If the landlord files a suit for recovery of arrears and a decree is passed, that decree can be executed not only against the karta but also against the other members of the joint Hindu family. Thus, each member of the joint Hindu family is liable for payment of rent in respect of the property which had been taken on rent by the karta of the joint family. In this sense each member of the joint family becomes a tenant within the definition of the terms given under Clause (a) of Section 3. Therefore, if the shop in question had been taken on rent Barati Lal as karta of the joint family and is was enjoyed by the members of the joint family including Salik Ram, Salik Ram will also be tenant within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 3. If Salik Ram is also a tenant under the Act, then obviously the premises in dispute cannot be said to have fallen vacant merely on account of one of the members of the joint family ceasing to sit at the shop and allowing the business to be looked after by another member of the joint family. 5. I am, however, of the opinion that the question relating to existence of joint family and the shop in dispute having been taken by Barati Lal as karta of the joint family has not been properly dealt with by the authorities below. 5. I am, however, of the opinion that the question relating to existence of joint family and the shop in dispute having been taken by Barati Lal as karta of the joint family has not been properly dealt with by the authorities below. In order to set up the plea of joint family it was not enough for the opposite parties to say that there was joint family and Barati Lal had become old, therefore, in his place Salik Ram had started sitting at the shop in question. It has to be investigated as to whether at the time the shop in dispute was taken on rent by Barati Lal, there existed joint family of which Salik Ram or his ancestors were members. This question could not be decided with reference to the assessment order alone, other evidence related to the time of inception of the tenancy is required to be placed on record. For this purpose the case will have to be remanded to the trial authority. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance on two decisions of this Court. In the first place he relied upon the decision M.P. Saxena, J. in the case of Smt. Ram Sami Devi and others v. Smt. Raisa Begum and others, 1978 ARC 103. It was held in this case that the brother of the tenant was not the member of the family and, therefore, when the tenant vacated the premises leaving the brother in the said premises, the premises would be deemed to have fallen vacant. In Paragraph 7 of the judgment the question that arose for consideration has been mentioned in these terms "Another question which arises for consideration is whether the building will be deemed to have fallen vacant because Arjun Das had shifted to another house and inducted Chunni Lal in it................................." From the word "inducted" it is apparent that Chunni Lal was not residing with his brother Arjun Das before the latter vacated the premises. This was not the case of the Hindu joint family where each member of the joint family has interest in the joint family properties. Tenancy right is also property an 1. therefore, if the tenancy is on behalf, of the joint family each member of the joint family will have interest in the said tenancy. This was not the case of the Hindu joint family where each member of the joint family has interest in the joint family properties. Tenancy right is also property an 1. therefore, if the tenancy is on behalf, of the joint family each member of the joint family will have interest in the said tenancy. Another decision relied upon by the learned Counsel is of K.C. Agarwal, J. in the case of Jai Kishan Paliwal v. Addl. District Judge, and others, 1980 (U.P.) 2 RCC 214. This was also not the case of joint Hindu family, and, therefore, it has no application on the facts of the present case. 7. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 14-4-1976 passed by the Additional City Magistrate (Rent Control) Lucknow, Annexure 7 and the judgment dated 9-12-1976, Annexure 8, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Lucknow, are hereby quashed. The case shall go back to the trial authority who shall decide the question of vacancy afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. Costs of this petition shall be easy.