Pankaj Mithal, J. -- This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been preferred against the order dated 16.7.2016 by which the objections of the revisionist under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. have been rejected.

2. The suit was filed against the father of the revisionist Ismail Khan for arrears of rent and eviction. On his death his two sons Mohd. Israil and Atula were substituted. The suit was decreed on 16.2.2004 but without substituting or impleading the revisionists.

3. The judgment, order and decree dated 16.2.2004 passed in SCC Suit No.20 of 2002 was put in execution. In the said execution, the revisionists who are sons and daughter of late Ismail Khan preferred objection contending that as they were not party in the suit the decree cannot be implemented against them.

4. The revisionists are claiming rights in the property only through their father Ismail Khan who was the tenant. On his death the tenancy devolved on all his heirs and legal representatives jointly. In such a case when there is no division of the tenanted accommodation amongst the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-tenant or apportionment of rent amongst the