JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 6.7.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No.1-S/13 of 2009 dismissing thereby the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan in civil suit No.48/1 of 2006. 2. The status of the appellant-plaintiff as tenant in the demised premises, i.e. shop No.4, namely, Dhiman Welding Works, Sector-2, Parwanoo, District Solan is subject matter of dispute in the present lis. The record reveals that her father, deceased Parveen happened to be in the use and occupation of the premises in question in the capacity of tenant. After his death, the demised premises seem to be occupied by his legal representatives, i.e. Smt. Roop Kaur, his widow and others. The respondent-defendant, however, determined the tenancy by serving them with notice under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The appellant-plaintiff, admittedly, was not served with such notice. Ultimately, the proceedings for eviction of Smt. Roop Kaur aforesaid and others were initiated by the respondent-defendant under the Act before Collector successfully. The Divisional Commissioner in an appeal affirmed the order passed by the Collector. Admittedly, the appellant-plaintiff was not impleaded as party in those proceedings also. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by learned Commissioner, Roop Kaur etc. filed Civil Writ Petition No.151 of 2003 before this Court. The same also met the same fate as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition. The judgment passed by learned single Judge was assailed further in Letter Patent Appeal No.139 of 2007 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 3.5.2013. 3. The same also met the same fate as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition. The judgment passed by learned single Judge was assailed further in Letter Patent Appeal No.139 of 2007 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 3.5.2013. 3. True it is that respondent-plaintiff was not party either in eviction proceedings initiated before Collector or in the writ petition and for that matter in the Letter Patent Appeal also, yet, since this issue was raised in the writ petition and also in the Letter Patent Appeal, which after having been considered vis-a-vis the law applicable was answered against Smt. Roop Kaur and others by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ashok Chintaman Juker and others v. Kishore Pandurang Mantri and another (2001) 5 SCC 1 , therefore, the same having been already adjudicated upon by this Court no interference with the impugned judgment and decree is warranted. 4. As a matter of fact, in the judgment in Roop Kaur's case cited, supra, it has been concluded that in joint tenancy, notice issued to one of the tenants is a valid notice and a suit instituted impleading only one of them as defendant is not only maintainable but a decree passed is also binding on all the joint tenants. In view of such categoric findings recorded by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction and affirmed by a Division Bench while dismissing the Letter Patent Appeal, nothing more remains to be adjudicated upon qua this aspect of the matter in the present lis. Therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by both Courts below while dismissing the suit. No legal question what to speak of substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.