This revision is directed against the judgment of V Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dated 9th January, 1976 dismissing the revision of the petitioners filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The facts briefly stated are these:-

The property in suit belonged to one Ganga Prasad. It was in the tenancy of Ilahi Bux alias Kwala on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/ -. Ganga Prasad sold the same to Akbar Ali, the plaintiff opposite party by a sale deed on 22. 6. 1971. It, however, appears that Ilahi Bux died in the meantime. After the death of Ilahi Bux, Akbar Ali purchased the arrears of rent which were due to Ganga Prasad from the latter under a sale deed executed on 18. 7. 1972. Akbar Ali thereafter sent a combined notice of termination of tenancy as well as that of demand to the sons and the wife of deceased Ilahi Bux. The notice was addressed to all the defendants the three sons and the widow of deceased Ilahi Bux and was served on Masita and Smt. Ramman on 26. 7. 1972. According to the case of the plaintiff as the defendants did not send the rent to the plaintiff within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, therefore, the defendants were the defaulters and were liable to eviction. The plaintiff also alleged that a portion of the house in the tenancy of the aforesaid defendants had been let out unauthorisably and without permission of the landlord to Siddiq defendant no. 5, therefore, the aforesaid defendants were liable to eviction on the ground of illegal subletting as well. The suit was contested by the defendants who denied the allegations of the plaintiff and alleged that the suit was bad for the defect of mis description of the disputed property, that no notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was ever served on the defendants, that only two months rent was due, that Rs. 240/- as arrears of rent was sent to the plaintiff by money order on 26. 8. 1972, that the defendant had not sublet the premises to Siddiq inasmuch as he was living in the house as a member of the family. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed a number of issues. It held that the defendants were defaulters having not paid the rent to the plaintiff within thirty days of the receipt of the notice and that as a portion of the premises had been illegally sub let, therefore, the defendants were liable to eviction. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court the defendants preferred a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. In revision the decree and judgment of the trial Court was maintained and the suit of the plaintiff stood decreed. Feeling aggrieved the defendants have come to this Court. The first question raised by the learned counsel was that as Ilahi Bux died not only leaving behind the three sons, viz. Bundoo, Masita and Allah Band but also a daughter Smt. Boondi, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment without impleading Smt. Boondi was not maintainable and that the same was liable to be dismissed on this ground. As a matter of fact this plea had been raised by the defendants in the written statement as well and the following issue had been framed by the trial Court on this controversy. The issue was whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Smt. Boondi as alleged by the defendants. "

However, before dealing with this question I wish to mention that during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court Smt. Rahiman the widow of deceased Ilahi Bux dead and thereupon Smt. Boondi was brought on record as her heir and legal representative. The fact that she was subsequently brought on the record was, however, immaterial for the pusposes of deciding the controversy raised by the defendants in the suit. Smt. Boondi admittedly was married and was living with her husband. She did not claim any right of precedence in the property in dispute. It further appears from the evidence brought on the record that after the death of ilahi Bu