JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—This is tenants petition questioning the validity of the order dated 15.2.2003 passed in JSCC Suit No. 17/95 as affirmed on 28.7.2008 in JSCC Revision No. 6 of 2003 by Additional District Judge Varanasi. 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner is tenant of building No. K-65/74-A-1 of Mohalla Gola Dina Nath Bahari, Varanasi Nagar, District Varanasi. JSCC suit being JSCC Suit No. 17 of 1995 was filed by Ram Avtar Seth father of respondents. In the said suit petitioner entered appearance and filed his written statement. Said JSCC suit was decided on 15.2.2003 and rate of rent inter se landlord and tenant fixed was found at the rate of Rs. 15 per month. Against the said order petitioner filed JSCC Revision No. 6 of 2003 and said Revision has also been dismissed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri D.K.S.Rathor, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case without there being any lawful foundation and basis perverse finding of fact has been returned that petitioner is in arrears of rent whereas deposits were being made under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on refusal being made as such writ petition in question deserves to be allowed. 4. Countering said submission Sri H.V. Shastri, Advocate contended that on admitted position there is default on the part of the petitioner as such suit of ejectment has rightly been decreed as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is that qua issue No. 1 categorical finding of fact has been returned that inter se parties admitted rate of rent is Rs. 15/- per month. While deciding issue No. 2 categorical finding of fact has been returned that tenant is in arrears of rent. The position has been admitted and is clear that arrears of rent was claimed from 7.2.1992 to February, 1995 and as far as deposits under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are concerned said deposit as accepted by the petitioner has been made from March 1995. This fact has been conceded before this Court that for the rent starting from 7.2.1992 to February, 1995 onwards there is nothing to show and substantiate that said payment has been made. This fact has been conceded before this Court that for the rent starting from 7.2.1992 to February, 1995 onwards there is nothing to show and substantiate that said payment has been made. Petitioner’s case is that said rent was paid but no receipt was issued in lieu to the same. Said claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted, inasmuch as both the Courts below has recorded categorical finding of fact on the basis of assessment of evidence that rent in question has never been paid. Deposit made are for period starting with effect from March, 1995 onwards and in this view of fact once there is no documentary evidence on record to show and substantiate that finding of fact is incorrect and rent from 7.2.1992 to February 1995 has been paid, in this background finding of fact returned that said rent has not being paid is not at all liable to be interfered with. Admitted position is that petitioner was in arrears of rent. In these circumstances finding of fact returned on issue of arrears of rent is just and correct warrants no interference. 6. At last it has been contended that petitioner has got three married sisters and they have not being impleaded as such suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. No such plea was ever taken before courts below. Coupled with this in the present case father of the petitioner was tenant and after his death, members of family who are residing with him became joint tenants/co-tenants and not tenants in common. This is not at all the case of petitioner that after father’s death, there was separation of tenancy and each one had been paying separate rent. Tenancy being one, all the members of family of original tenant residing with him at the time of his death succeeded to tenancy together. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Chintaman Juker v. Kishore Pandurang Mantri, AIR 2001 SC 2251 , paragraph 16 has already been answered the question, that order passed against one co-tenant is binding upon the other co-tenant and such a decree would bind all the co-tenant. The pleas raised qua non-joinder is thus, unsustainable. 7. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. The pleas raised qua non-joinder is thus, unsustainable. 7. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. Tenant is granted time to vacate the premises in question within six months from today and hand over peaceful possession to the landlord subject to the condition that undertaking is furnished within one month before Prescribed Authority that peaceful possession would be handed over. In the event of failure to furnish undertaking interim protection accorded shall come to an end, and landlord would be free to execute the proceeding. ————