S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a Defendant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the landlords' suit for their ejectment. The Appellants Misri Lal and others are the tenants of a shop of which the Plaintiff Respondents Ram Gopal and Kanhaiya Lal are joint owners and landlord. As the shop is situate in a Village in Mathura district the tenancy is not governed by the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The landlord served a notice of termination of tenancy, and on the Appellants' refusal to quit they filed the present suit.
(2.) The only point urged in support of this appeal that the notice terminating the tenancy is invalid because it was signed by one of the landlords only whereas it should have been on behalf of both. I have read the notice. It bears the title: "Notice. Sri Ram Gopal was Sri Kanhaiya Lal sons of Sri Kedar Nath Lal Agarwal residents of Sadabad, district Mathura, notifies Suchak)...". It is sighed by Ram Gopal describing himself as "Ram Go pal Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal on behalf of the notifies". Thus the notice on the face of it shows that it was signed by one of the landlords on behalf of both. Moreover, both the landlords signed the plaint, and there is a joint statement in it that they served on the Defendant a notice terminating the tenancy. Where a notice of termination, though signed by one of the joint owners, says that it was being sent on behalf of all of them, and subsequently all of them state, in the plaint in the suit for ejectment, that they sent a notice of termination, it will be presumed that the statement in the notice is correct, and the onus will be on the tenant to prove that the notice was not on behalf of all the joint owners.
(3.) No other point was urged.;