S. U. KHAN, J. This is tenants writ petition. Landlords- respondents filed SCC suit No. 41 of 2001 against tenants for eviction on the ground of default and material alteration and for recovery of arrears of rent after serving notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent. The suit was decreed by JSCC, Bijnor on 14-1- 2003. Revision filed against the same being revision No. 6 of 2003, has also been dismissed by ADJ/special Judge, Bijnor through judgment and order dated 4-2-2004, hence this writ petition. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that by virtue of family partition only plaintiffs-respondents were owners landlords of the property in dispute. According to the landlords rate of rent was Rs. 200 per month while according to the tenants petitioners it was only Rs. 45 per month. Both the Courts below have held that the rate of rent was Rs. 200 per month. Regarding benefit of deposit under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Courts below held that as after service of notice tenants admittedly did not send any money order to the landlords hence deposit made by the tenants under Section 30 could not be of any avail to them. Question of material alteration was also decided in favour of the landlords and it was held that in July, 1998 about four feet Verandah was demolished by the defendants. 3. Revisional Court held that as the rent under Section 30 had been deposited after termination of tenancy hence it was not a valid deposit, as after termination of tenancy petitioners did not remain tenants hence they were not entitled to make deposit under Section 30 of the Act. In my opinion to that extent revisional Court was wrong. Even after termination of tenancy if landlords refuse to accept rent, tenants who become statutory tenants are entitled to make deposit under Section 30 of the Act. However, as admittedly no money order was sent after notice of demand and termination of tenancy hence deposit under Section 30 of the Act was invalid on this ground. Apart from it no rent was deposited by the tenants on the first date of hearing in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 4. Apart from it no rent was deposited by the tenants on the first date of hearing in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 4. The finding of rate of rent in finding of fact and Courts below have taken into consideration relevant material on record to record the said finding. Even in the finding regarding substantial damage to the building there is no such error, which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. The main point argued by learned counsel for the tenants petitioners is that notice of termination of tenancy on behalf of some of the landlords was not valid and similarly suit filed by some of the landlords without impleading other landlords as respondents was not maintainable. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has cited G. S. Prasad v. D. J. Dehradun and others reported in 1997 (2) ARC 535. This point was not raised before the Courts below. 6. Even otherwise the aforesaid authority of G. S. Prasad v. D. J. Dehradun, is per incuriam, as it has not taken into consideration Supreme Court authorities on the point. 7. In a full bench authority of Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 1973 Gujarat 131, it was held that suit by some of the co- owners or joint owners against tenants for eviction is not maintainable. The said full bench authority of the Gujarat High Court was overruled by the Supreme Court in AIR 1993 SC 1587 , placing reliance upon several earlier authorities of the Supreme Court particularly the authority reported in AIR 1989 SC 758 . 8. A full bench authority of this Court reported in 1987 (1) ARC 281 has declared Rule 15 (2) of the Rules framed under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as invalid and has held that release application under Section 21 of the Act by one or some of the co-owners/co- landlords is maintainable even without impleading all other co- owners/co-landlords as proforma opposite parties. If release application under Section 21 of the Act is maintainable by some of the landlords then suit for ejectment is also maintainable by them. The aforesaid authority of G. S. Prasad has not taken into consideration this full bench authority and the Supreme Court authority of AIR 1993 SC 1587 hence it is per incuriam. If release application under Section 21 of the Act is maintainable by some of the landlords then suit for ejectment is also maintainable by them. The aforesaid authority of G. S. Prasad has not taken into consideration this full bench authority and the Supreme Court authority of AIR 1993 SC 1587 hence it is per incuriam. 9. Accordingly I hold that suit for ejectment filed by some of the landlords even without impleading other landlords as proforma respondents is quite maintainable. 10. Accordingly there is not merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. 11. However tenants petitioners are granted ten months time to vacate provided that within one month from today they file an undertaking before the JSCC to the effect that on or before expiry of the aforesaid period of ten months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords. Tenants petitioners shall also deposit the entire decreetal amount due till expiry of ten months within one month before the JSCC for immediate payment to the landlords. Petition dismissed. .