- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Etah on 22-3-77 on a Revision Application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been impugned.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the respondents 3 and 4 were the landlords, in respect of a tenanted premises wherein Bishambhar Dayal, Sheo Shankar and Raj Bahadur, three brothers, were joint tenants. The present petitioner Smt. Ram Devi is the widow of Bishambar Dayal. The present petitioner No. 2 is one of the joint tenants while the heirs of the third joint tenant Raj Bahadur have been arrayed as respon dents. A suit was filed by the owner landlords against the aforesaid three brothers for ejectment from the tenanted premises and for arrears of rent of the same on the ground of default in payment of rent. Notices were issued separately to all the three joint tenants demanding arrears of rent for five months @ Rs. 44 per month, amounting to Rs. 220 in all. It is further the admitted case of the parties that the three brothers Bishambhar, Sheo Shankar and Raj Bahadur, in response to the notices, sent three separate money orders amounting to Rs. 100/-, Rs. 80 and Rs. 40. The landlords refused to accept such money orders.
(3.) THE suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court on 20-5-74. A revision was preferred under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the 1st Addi tional District Judge, Etah and this revision was dismissed on 23-3-77. It appears that a Second Civil Revision No. 1002/71 was preferred before the Allahabad High Court and this Second Revision too was dismissed on 29-9-81 and thereafter the present writ petition was filed. The only question that arises for consideration by this court, in terms of the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties, is whether the tender of rent by the three joint tenants separately as per the aforesaid money- orders was valid tender to wipe out the default on their part. It is not disputed that the total sum so sent by the 3 money-orders equals the total sum under claim in the notice. It is also not disputed that all the 3 money-orders reached the landlords within the time indicated in the notice.;