JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of suit instituted by landlord respondent No. 3 Subhash Chandra for possession of the tenanted accommodation and recovery of arrears of rent against original tenant-petitioner Smt. Sulochana since deceased and survived by legal representatives. The suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 129 of 1992 on the file of JSCC, Saharanpur. In the plaint it was stated that property in dispute was situate in village (Gogalhedi) hence provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable thereupon. The tenant pleaded that property in dispute was constructed over agricultural plot No. 122/2 situate in village Gogalhedi which was bhoomidhari land and no certificate under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (regarding change of user of the land) had been obtained hence property continued to be agricultural property and suit for eviction could be filed only before S.D.O. under Section 209 of the said Act hence JSCC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. Property in dispute is a house. Lekhpal of the area was examined by the plaintiff and he stated that at the time of inspection (partal) in relation to consolidation operation property in dispute was found to be abadi hence was kept out of consolidation operation. 3. Admittedly no ground for eviction under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 like default in payment of rent etc. was made out. No such ground was even alleged. JSCC, Saharanpur held that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute and that the suit was not barred by Section 209 read with Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 666.66 alongwith pendente lite and future rent/damages for use and occupation at the admitted rate of rent of Rs. 250/- per month, was decreed on 20.12.1993. Against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1993 original tenant-petitioner filed SCC revision No. 109 of 1993. Vlllth A.D.J., Court No. VII, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 23.10.2000 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition. 4. 250/- per month, was decreed on 20.12.1993. Against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1993 original tenant-petitioner filed SCC revision No. 109 of 1993. Vlllth A.D.J., Court No. VII, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 23.10.2000 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition. 4. It was also pleaded by the original tenant that initially her husband Heera Lal was tenant and after his death two of his sons also inherited the tenancy alongwith her hence notice of termination of tenancy which was given only to Smt. Sulochna was bad and suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of two sons of original tenant Heeral Lal. The Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. A.D.M. Allahabad, AIR 1995 S.C. 676 and A.C. Juker v. K.P. Mantri, A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2251 has held that after the death of the tenant all his heirs inherit the tenancy jointly. In case of joint tenants it is sufficient if notice of termination of tenancy is given to one tenant and suit filed against one or some of joint tenants is quite competent and decree of eviction if passed in said suit is binding upon non-impleaded joint tenants also. 5. As far as the question of applicability of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and bar of jurisdiction of JSCC is concerned, recently it has been held by this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. Mohd. Ahmad, 2006 (3) A.R.C. 625 (decided by Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.) that if building is constructed over agricultural land then suit for eviction of tenant before JSCC is quite maintainable even if certificate under Section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has not been obtained. In the said authority different legal aspects have been considered. 6. Before the Courts below, tenant had pleaded that the area in question had been included in town area limits. After perusal of evidence the said assertion was found to be incorrect by both the Courts below. No evidence was adduced by the tenant to the effect that the area in question had been included in town area or municipal limits. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments, order and decree. Writ petition is dismissed. 8. Tenant-petitioners are granted six months time to vacate provided that— 1. No evidence was adduced by the tenant to the effect that the area in question had been included in town area or municipal limits. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments, order and decree. Writ petition is dismissed. 8. Tenant-petitioners are granted six months time to vacate provided that— 1. Within one month from today they file an undertaking before the JSCC to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioners to vacate they are required to pay Rs. 6,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the JSCC and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. 3. Entire decreetal amount due till date (after adjusting any amount already deposited) shall be deposited within one month from today before JSCC for immediate payment to landlord. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 6,000/- and entire decreetal amount due till date are not deposited within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly if after complying with the above conditions, building in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then since after six months till actual vacation tenants shall be liable to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as rent/damages for use and occupation. ————