Rakesh Tiwari, J.- Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit be­fore Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad in respect of House No. 224 Nakhas Kona, Allahabad, arraying Mohd. Zhoor and Mohd. Ismail as defendant in the suit. It was stated in the said suit that previously one late Haji Wali Mohd. father of the defendant and son of Late Buddhan Das was the tenant of the aforesaid shop at the rate of 100/- per month who was also liable to pay water tax to the extent of 1/4 share in addition to the rent as required under sec­tion 7 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After the death of Late Hazi Wali Mohd. sometimes in March, 1992 his heirs i.e., defendant of the suit came in possession of the shop. The stand of the plaintiff Late Hazi Wali Mohd. at the time of his death was that he was in arrears of rent since 1.1.1992 and thereafter his heir i.e., the present defendant who did not pay any rent and water tax up to 19.3.1993. Accordingly, he was served with a notice in the last week of March, 1993 demanding the arrears of rent and termination of the tenancy, but the re­spondent neither paid any rent nor vacated the shop in question within the time stipulated in the notice, therefore, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment was filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes at Allahabad which was numbered as Suit No. 128 of 1993. The suit was contested by the de­fendant by filing written statement denying their liability of any arrears of rent @ 100/- per month which was admitted by the defendant. Receipt of the notice was also not denied but the same was pleaded to be invalid and it was pleaded by the defendant that plaintiff alone is not the landlord but other heirs namely two sons and daughter and widow of late Afjal Hussain father of the plaintiff were also co-landlord. 3. The Trial Court while dismissing the suit by order dated 21.9.1995 held that the defendant of the suit had deposited all the rent oh the first date of hearing. Accordingly, issue Nos. 3. The Trial Court while dismissing the suit by order dated 21.9.1995 held that the defendant of the suit had deposited all the rent oh the first date of hearing. Accordingly, issue Nos. 3 and 6 were decided and with regard to issue No. 5 it was held that the plaintiff failed to prove that "docchhatti" was con­structed without permission of the plaintiff and that construction had dimin­ished the utility of the shop in question. Subsequently, the landlord-petitioner preferred revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Allahabad on 2.2.2007 holding that notice served upon the defendant of the suit was invalid since the same was not served on behalf of all the landlord. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 2.2.2007 as well as order dated 21.9.1995 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad on the ground that the finding recorded by the Revisional Court are against the evidence on record. It is stated that by the judgment and order dated 2.2.2007, the Revisional Court has taken erroneous view with regard to payment of water tax and has also erroneously and illegally held that the no­tice served upon the defendant of the suit was in valid since the same was not served on behalf of all the landlord. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the Revisional Court while confirming the order of the Court below has com­mitted illegality to the effect in holding that the tenant had deposited the en­tire rent before institution of the suit and the conclusion drawn by him was that the plaintiff-petitioner has not been able too prove receipt of payment of water tax for granting benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act to the tenant. 5. However, on perusal of the counter-affidavit, it appears that the case set up in the plaint of Suit No. 128 of 1993 was incorrect. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that the Revisional Court has found that the notice termi­nating the tenancy of the defendants-respondents was invalid as it was not given on behalf of all the landlord and the said finding will not invalidate the judgment of the Revisional Court which has confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that the Revisional Court has found that the notice termi­nating the tenancy of the defendants-respondents was invalid as it was not given on behalf of all the landlord and the said finding will not invalidate the judgment of the Revisional Court which has confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit that the find­ings given by both the Courts giving benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act, is just, legal and based on evidence on record. As regards Do-cchhatti is concerned, it is stated that it was always in existence in the premises in dispute and it was never constructed a new, hence the provision of section 20 (2) (c) of the Act, is not at all attracted. It is also averred in the counter-affidavit that there is no default in payment of rent and the same has been deposited as provided under section 20 (4) of the Act and there is no dues of water tax. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that the Courts below have taken erroneous view of law holding that the notice given by the plain­tiff-petitioner was invalid as the same was not given on behalf of all the land­lords. Apparently, ownership was joint and as such notice given on behalf of one of the landlord would deemed to be notice on behalf of all of them. In this re­gard, law is well settled that where there is more than one landlord of a building, in that situation notice given by one of them is legal and valid and the suit cannot be thrown on the ground that it is not maintainable. As regards deposit of rent is concerned, it appears that the tenant-respondent had not paid the amount of water tax on the first date of hearing. It has been shown from the record that the averment of the respondent was incorrect. The plaintiff-peti­tioner filed demand notice of water tax to establish before the Court that huge amount of water tax was lying in arrears from the tenant, but this fact was not considered by the Court below that water tax was not deposited by the tenant. It has been shown from the record that the averment of the respondent was incorrect. The plaintiff-peti­tioner filed demand notice of water tax to establish before the Court that huge amount of water tax was lying in arrears from the tenant, but this fact was not considered by the Court below that water tax was not deposited by the tenant. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner filed an application be­fore the Revisional Court annexing therewith bill dated 23.10.2000 which shows arrears of water tax amounting to Rs. 11,449/- for the period upto 16.7.1984 to March, 1999, but the Revisional Court rejected the application of the peti­tioner for taking the additional evidence on record. 7. The petitioner had also filed one receipt of water tax of the year 2006-07 (paper No. 36-C) from which it is established that there are arrears of wa­ter to the tune of Rs. 41,163/- which is also admitted by the Revisional Court but even then benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act was extended to the tenant which is not in accordance with law. 8. From perusal of paragraph 22 of the writ petition, it appears that the tenant had not deposited whole of the amount on the first date of hearing. The short fall of the amount deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing was appreciable and substantial. It also appears that the tenant had not de­posited the cost of notice and, therefore, benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act given by the Court below to the tenant is illegal and the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 9. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is, ac­cordingly, allowed. The orders dated 2.2.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Room No. 13, Allahabad and 21.9.1995 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court to pass a fresh reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after considering the documentary evidence and the submissions of the parties in accordance with law. The matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court to pass a fresh reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after considering the documentary evidence and the submissions of the parties in accordance with law. The Revisional Court will also took into the matter as to whether the tenant regularly paying the rent and if an application for enhancement of rent is moved, the same shall also be considered by the Court in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Writ Petition Allowed.