Judgment – By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners/tenants, have sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 24-04-1995, passed by Judge, Small Causes Court and in S.C.C. suit No. 35 of 1985 and order dated 20-05-1998, passed by First Additional District Judge, Haridwar in S.C.C. revision No. 10 of 1995, whereby the appeal against decree passed in S.C.C. suit No. 35 of 1985 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts, as narrated in the writ petition are that originally one Late Shri Mulakh Raj Chaddha was the original landlord in the shop in question and after his death, respondent no. 3 Shri Raj Kumar Chaddha (since deceased) was owner and landlord of the house in question (known as 'Chaddha Bhawan' Birla Road, Haridwar), in the ground floor of which, shop in question was let out to petitioner No. 1 Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta (since deceased) on rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. The landlord instituted a suit No. 35 of 1985, against the defendants (present petitioners), for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction, before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Haridwar, alleging that the tenant committed default, payment of rent since May, 1977. It was further alleged by the landlord that the petitioner No. 1 sub-let the shop to other defendants- Shri Hari Kishan Gupta and Alok Kumar Gupta. Notice dated 27-07-1985, was got served by the landlord on the petitioners, terminating the tenancy on expiry of thirty days after its service. Where after S.C.C. suit No. 35 of 1985 was instituted against the petitioners. Learned trial court after recording evidence and hearing the parties, found that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent apart from subletting the shop. As such, the Judge, Small Causes Court, decreed the suit on 24-04-1995, aggrieved by which defendants/petitioners, filed S.C.C. revision No. 10 of 1995, which also after hearing the parties was dismissed by respondent no. 1. Challenging both the orders, as aforesaid, it is stated in the writ petition that petitioner No. 1 Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta was given the shop in dispute, as karta of joint family by Late Shri Mullakh Raj Chaddha. Defendant! petitioner No.2- Hari Kishan Gupta, is younger brother of Late Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta. 1. Challenging both the orders, as aforesaid, it is stated in the writ petition that petitioner No. 1 Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta was given the shop in dispute, as karta of joint family by Late Shri Mullakh Raj Chaddha. Defendant! petitioner No.2- Hari Kishan Gupta, is younger brother of Late Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta. It is further stated that a fair price shop was allotted to Shri Hari Kishan Gupta, who is member of the joint family and the said shop is being run in the accommodation in question since 1964. Even in the municipal record, from the period 1971 to 1979, shows that Shri Hari Kishan Gupta is tenant of the shop in question. It is further alleged that in fact respondent no. 3, used to purchase ration from the fair price shop and the rent used to be adjusted against the price of the items purchased. Challenging the notice dated 27-07-1985, served under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it has been stated that it was a vague notice and not a notice of demand of rent due. It has been further stated in the writ petition that neither water tax or house tax was payable by the tenants nor any default in payment was committed by them. It is also alleged that since the business was being run by the joint family, there was no subletting of the shop in question. In para-13 of the writ petition, it has been further stated that it was well within the knowledge of respondent no. 3 as well as his father that petitioner nO.2 Shri Hari Kishan Gupta is doing business in the shop from the period prior to the commencement of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and Shri Alok Kumar Gupta, petitioner no. 3 was assisting in the business since then. It is also alleged that this fact gets corroboration also from the sales tax assessment year 1964-65 onwards. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is alleged in the writ petition that the findings of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court and that of the revisional court are against the law and record. It has been stated that otherwise also, in reply to the notice dated 2707-1985, the petitioners sent Rs. 2611.94, i.e. more than the rent due to the respondent No.3. It has been stated that otherwise also, in reply to the notice dated 2707-1985, the petitioners sent Rs. 2611.94, i.e. more than the rent due to the respondent No.3. In view of said fact also, the suit could not have been instituted on the ground of default of payment of rent. Lastly, it is stated that even otherwise since Shri Hari Kishan Gupta and Shri Alok Kumar Gupta were in the business in the shop in question from the period prior to the commencement of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972, their tenancy stood regularized. 3. A counter affidavit. v. as filed on behalf of respondent No.3, before the Allahabad High Court, where this writ petition was filed in the year 1998, in which it has been admitted that Late Shri Mullakh Raj Chaddha, who was the original landlord has died on 30-06-1997. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in the mutual partition on 11-06-1983, the shop in question came into the share of the answering respondent. It is further stated in the said affidavit that shop in question was let out only to Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta and not to his joint family. Rather it Is alleged that all the brothers of Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta are living separately. Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta could not have been the karta of the family as Shri Vishwambhar Dayal, was the eldest son in the family of the petitioner No. 1. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Shri Hari Kishan Gupta and Alok Kumar Gupta were never treated as tenant In the shop in question and the facts alleged in the writ petition in this connection are denied as incorrect one. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the tenant were liable to pay the house tax as well as the water tax and they did commit default in payment of rent. Defending the orders of the Judge, Small Causes Court and that of the revisional court, it has been stated that the finding of the fact recorded by aforesaid parties, cannot be interfered by this Court. It is also stated by respondent no. 3 that since requirements of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972, were not fulfilled as such the tenants not entitled to protection from eviction. 4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is also stated by respondent no. 3 that since requirements of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972, were not fulfilled as such the tenants not entitled to protection from eviction. 4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As far as land lordship of respondent No. 2 is concerned, there is no dispute on this point. It is also not disputed that Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta was tenant in the shop in question. It is also admitted between the parties that the rate of rent was Rs. 25/- per month. The dispute between the parties is with regard to : (i) alleged default in payment of rent, and (ii) If the petitioner No. 2 and 3 were inducted as sub-tenants by Shri Laxman Swaroop Gupta (respondent No.1). First I take up the question relating to default in payment of rent. While giving findings on the point of determination on this question, learned Judge, Small Causes Court, has held that since the defendant failed to pay water tax and house tax with the rent, as such he committed default in payment of rent. The said finding has been upheld by the learned Revisional Court. However, both the courts below appear to have erred in law by holding that tenants, in present case, were liable to pay water tax and house tax in respect of the shop in question. Section 7 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, reads as under :- "7. However, both the courts below appear to have erred in law by holding that tenants, in present case, were liable to pay water tax and house tax in respect of the shop in question. Section 7 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, reads as under :- "7. Liability to pay taxes ;- Subject to any contract in writing to the contrary, but notwithstanding anything contained in Section 179 of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (U.P. Act II of 1959) or in Section 149 or in any rule made or notification issued under Section 338 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act II of 1916) or in Section 14 (1) (e) of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 (U.P. Act II of 1914) the tenant shall be liable to pay to the landlord in addition to and as part of the rent, the following taxes or proportionate part thereof, if any, payable in respect of the building or part under his tenancy, namely : (a) the water-tax; (b) twenty-five per cent of every such enhancement in house-tax made after the commencement of this Act, or such portion thereof, as is not occasioned on account of the increase in the assessment of the building as a result of the enhancement of rent under the provisions of Section 5; Provided that nothing in this section shall apply in relation to a tenant, the rent payable by whom for the time being (excluding any enhancement of rent under provisions of Section (5) does not exceed twenty-five rupees per month. " . 6. Since the admitted rate of rent is only Rs. 25 (i.e. not exceeding Rs. 25) per month, as such in view of the proviso to Section 7, as quoted above, the tenant in the present case was not liable to make payment of water tax and house tax. As such, finding of both the courts below is against the law and cannot be up held. It has been found by the court below in the judgment of the revisional court, reply to the notice regarding rent for the period 15-05-1977 to 21-08-1985, was given by the tenant. It has also come in the record that in response to the notice, the tenants remitted Rs. 2,611/- to the landlord by 1608-1985, which the courts below found that it was short by Rs. It has also come in the record that in response to the notice, the tenants remitted Rs. 2,611/- to the landlord by 1608-1985, which the courts below found that it was short by Rs. 25/- on account of the fact that water tax and house tax were also required to be paid with the rent in question. Since in this case water tax and house tax was not payable by the tenant, as such, the view taken by both the courts below is erroneous that the rent was less than the rent payable. As such, there is no default committed by the petitioners in payment of rent. 7. Now, I come to the next point which relates to sub-tenancy. The case of the respondent No. 1- landlord is that petitioner No.1 has sub-let the shop to petitioner No.2 and 3. While the petitioners case is this that they being members of the joint family, were doing the business for the family and there is no act of subletting on the part of the petitioner No.1 In support of this fact, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is copy of letter dated 29-07-1991, addressed to Harikishan Gupta (petitioner No.2), which reflects that he was running a fair price shop. Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is copy of notice received from the Sales Tax Department, also shows that for the assessment order 1964-65, Shri Hari Kishan Gupta received notices from the said department in respect of the fair price shop. Annexure-7 is the copy of sales tax assessment order, showing that Shri Hari Kishan Gupta, did business of fair price shop in Birla Road, Haridwar in the year 1964-65. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that shop in question is situated In Birla Road. From the notice received under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it appears that the default of rent has been alleged only since May, 1977. That being so, it can be said that the landlord has accepted the rent before that period. The record clearly shows that it was Shri Hari Kishan Gupta, in whose name the fair price shop was running. And Shri Alok Gupta was assisting him in the shop. That being so, it can be said that the landlord has accepted the rent before that period. The record clearly shows that it was Shri Hari Kishan Gupta, in whose name the fair price shop was running. And Shri Alok Gupta was assisting him in the shop. It is also not disputed that petitioner No. 1 to whom the respondent No. 3 admits to be the tenant is brother of petitioner No.2 and uncle of petitioner No.3. It has come on the record that respondent no. 3 also lives in the same house where the shop is situated. As is clear from his address, in the writ petition and also from the address given by him in the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is hard to believe that respondent No.3 (landlord) who was residing in the same house did not object to Shri Hari Kishan and Shri Alok Gupta since 1964 till 1985 for long period of 21 years and suddenly alleged that they were the sub-tenant inducted by the tenant. U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, came into force w.e.f. 20-09-1972 and the petitioners No.2 and 3 were occupying the accommodation in question from the period prior to said date. Not only this, the rent was also being accepted and default is alleged to have been committed only since May, 1977. That being so, all the three petitioners were protected under Section 14 of U.P. Act, 13 of 1972, which reads as under :_ "14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorized licensee or tenant of such building." In view of the aforesaid provision, since the rent was being accepted from the petitioners, prior to commencement of aforesaid act, as such, they cannot be said to be sub-tenant. Otherwise also, it has not been shown in the record that petitioner No.1 has not parted with the possession of the shop or given exclusive possession to the petitioner No. 2 and 3 or if he was realising any rent from them. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners No. 2 and 3, cannot be said to be sub-tenant of petitioner No. 1. Therefore, on this point also both the courts namely, Small Causes Court and the Revisional Court, has committed error of law in holding that the petitioner No. 1 has sub-let the accommodation to petitioner No. 2 and 3, who were Infact members of the joint family and from whom rent was being accepted till 1977 by the landlord who was living In the same house, as discussed above. 9. In view of above discussion, the Impugned judgments and orders are liable to be quashed and writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned judgments and orders, passed by respondent no.' 1 and 2 are quashed. No order as to costs .