JUDGMENT DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against a revisional order dated 11.1.2010 by which the revision of the respondent-landlord against the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court has been allowed while the cross objection preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Sri Raunaq Husain was the original owner of house No. 129/1 situated in Mohalla Sarai Jhansi where the petitioner was a tenant. On his death, his wife, the contesting respondent, became the owner and landlord. She instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 78 of 1999 inter alia with the allegation that U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to the premises and initially the petitioner was a tenant of only two rooms situated on ground floor of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month but from September, 1997, he was given one more room on the southern side and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. Earlier, the tenant used to pay the rent to her husband and used to get the entries made in the diary of the tenant himself. The petitioner-tenant did not pay rent since 1998 despite her repeated demand. Accordingly, his tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 8.6.1999 but neither rent was paid nor the premises were vacated forcing her to prefer the aforesaid suit. 4. The petitioner-tenant contested the suit inter-alia on the ground that his tenancy consisted of three rooms, varanda, courtyard, staircase, latrine, bathroom and kitchen at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month and though the rent was being paid to her husband, he never issued any receipt and in fact her husband had taken a premium of Rs. 20,000/- after a few months of inception of tenancy which he never returned nor adjusted it in rent. It was also stated that all the rent uptil March, 1999 had been paid to the landlady but she refused to accept the rent from April, 1999 forcing him to deposit the rent under section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was further stated that the Act applies and the notice was illegal as It was not given by all the co-landlords. 5. It was further stated that the Act applies and the notice was illegal as It was not given by all the co-landlords. 5. The Trial Court framed as many as six issues and held that the Act was ,applicable to the disputed accommodation, the petitioner was a tenant of only three rooms and the other amenities were being enjoyed by the landlord and the tenant while the rate of rent was Rs. 250/- per month. It went on to hold that though there was a default in payment of rent, but since the notice was not given by all the co-landlords, therefore it was illegal and as such dismissed the suit for eviction but decreed it so far as the arrears of rent is concerned after holding that there was a default in payment of rent. 6. On revision, the Revisional Court held that the notice was valid and could have been given by even one co-landlord and the suit could also be filed by one co-landlord and allowed the revision decreed the suit for eviction and rejected the cross-objection. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the notice as illegal as it was sent only by one co-landlord and thus finding of the Court below was vitiated. In the opinion of the Court, the argument is totally misconceived. The issue is by now very well settled as held by the Ape Court in the case of Dhana Lal v. Kalawati Bai 1 2002 (48) ALR 678 (SC) and by this Court in the case of Gulab Chand Verma v. Badri Narain Mishra 2 2004 (57) ALR 11, that even a co-landlord can serve a notice determining the tenancy and can also filed suit for eviction. 8. Lastly, it is urged that it was a case of splitting of tenancy which was not permissible as the conditions contemplated were not satisfied. In support thereof, he has relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court rendered in the case of Tej Kumar v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardwar and others 3 1994 (2) ARV 117 = 1994 (24) ALR 22 (Sum) So far as the ratio laid-down in Tej Kumar's case (supra) is concerned, there can be no two opinions about it, but the question is whether in the present case there was any splitting of tenancy. The case set up by the respondent-landlord was that the petitioner was a tenant only of three rooms on the ground floor and so far as the amenities like latrine, bathroom and kitchen etc. is concerned, both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the aforesaid amenities were being enjoyed by both the parties and therefore the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner has no substance and as such is hereby rejected. 9. No other point has been urged. 10. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 11. However, the Counsel for the petitioner after obtaining instruction from his client has given an undertaking that he would vacate the premises within a reasonable time fixed by the Court and would also deposit the rent thereof. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner hall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the respondent landlord on or before 24th of May, 2010 and would also deposit the entire rent for the period uptil 24th of May, 2010 within a period of four weeks from today with the Court below which shall be released in favour of the respondent-landlord. In case of default of depositing the rent, the decree shall be executed forthwith. Petition Dismissed.