JUDGMENT H.R. Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal by the unwilling tenants of a house who have been ordered to pay arrears of rent and also to be evicted. In regard to the eviction the decree is from the first appellate court. In regard to the arrears it is concurrent. The ground on which eviction has been granted is admitted failure to pay the rent over some years. 2. The facts of the case are the following. Long ago the tenants, who are brothers inter se, got into the premises on the basis of a Kirayanama executed by Kunj Behari Lal eldest of the three. The landlord at that time was one Ram Chand. However, he died sometime in 1947. Even before his death Ram Chand had to bring a suit for arrears. The plaintiffs who brought the present suit are his sister and her son, heirs to his estate, there being in fact no nearer relations. 3. The main defence was that these plaintiffs had no locus standi because the house had been gifted by Ram Chand in his life-time to an association called the Agarwall Sabha. Even the status of the plaintiffs as heirs of Ram Chand was sought to be questioned. However, it was unnecessary to go into that in the present suit, the same plea having been taken and lost by these appellants in an execution case by these plaintiffs executing the decree for arrears of rent for this house obtained by Ram Chand in his life-time. 4. The appellants sought to prove that they have been paying rent to the office-holders of the so called Agarwala Sabha, which however is neither an incorporated company, nor a registered society. Both the courts disbelieved the story of the house being gifted to the Agarwala Sabha or to any body else. While both the courts granted a decree for arrears that for eviction had to be given by the first appellate court in appeal by the plaintiffs on the ground that default in paying rent had in fact been admitted. 5. The 'appellants had also urged that there should have been a notice on each of the 3 defendants as they were occupying different portions of the house and they were paying rent separately for their respective portions. This was also rejected by the lower courts. 6. 5. The 'appellants had also urged that there should have been a notice on each of the 3 defendants as they were occupying different portions of the house and they were paying rent separately for their respective portions. This was also rejected by the lower courts. 6. The bare statement of the facts shows' that the tenants had not only defaulted for a long time but were denying the title of the plaintiffs. Even in Ram Chand's life-time they seem to have been defaulting tenants. But after his death they set up a story which is altogether false; in fact, it was pleaded that Ram Chand had gifted the property by a deed, but the evidence was that he gifted it by word of mouth, and died before he could execute any deed. The story is absurd and has been set up with the sole intention of defrauding the plaintiffs of the rent. 7. As for the notice there was only one tenancy on the basis of the Kirayanama of the entire house. If the three brothers had shared the house and each paid a part of the rent separately it was an arrangement for convenience and not the creation of three separate tenancies. 8. In the result, I find that the appeals altogether without substance and I dismiss it. Costs and pleader's fee payable by appellants to the respondents according to rules. Appeal dismissed.