JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - This revision under section 115 C.P.C. should have been filed under section 25, Small Cause Court Act. However, I am not attaching any importance to the mistake committed in this regard. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent and damages in respect of a shop alleging that the defendants were in arrears of rent and in spite of a notice of demand, they failed to pay the arrears within time. Their tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 27-6-1970 but as they failed to vacate the premises, hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested on the grounds that one Jagannath was also a tenant of the premises and as no notice to quit and to pay the arrears of rent had been served on him and he had not been impleadcd as a party to the suit, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that the alleged arrears of rent from 1-1-1970 to 31-3-1970 was paid to the plaintiff on 25-4-1970 and as such no default was committed. It was further pleaded that no notice of demand was served on the defendants and the notice to quit was invalid. 4. The trial court framed necessary issues and after a careful scrutiny and analysis of the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the shop in suit was let to Mahabir Prasad alone and Jagannath had nothing to do with the tenancy. Admittedly, the partnership with Jagannath was constituted after the shop in question was taken in tenancy. On the date of the contract of tenancy Jagannath was no where in the picture. The view taken by the court below is fully justified. 5. On the question of arrears of rent, the court arrived at the finding that the case set up by the plaintiff was correct and that no rent had in fact been paid as alleged, by the defendants. The learned Judge has carefully scrutinised the evidence and the finding, which is a finding of fact, does not call for any interference. 6. The Learned Judge has held that the notice of demand was duly served on defendant No. 2 and in spite of the notice of demand, he failed to pay the arrears of rent within time. The learned Judge has carefully scrutinised the evidence and the finding, which is a finding of fact, does not call for any interference. 6. The Learned Judge has held that the notice of demand was duly served on defendant No. 2 and in spite of the notice of demand, he failed to pay the arrears of rent within time. The plea taken by the defendant that he was not even present in the shop when the notice is alleged to have been refused by him has been disbelieved by the learned Judge. It was open to the court to accept or not to accept the version of the defendant was appearing in an examination, it does not necessarily lead to the inference he did not visit the shop after the examination was over at about 10 A.M. Further, there is nothing to show that the endorsement made by the postman was induced or procured by the plaintiff. This finding also cannot be successfully challenged in a revision. 7. The notice terminating the tenancy has not been shown to be vitiated by any legal error. The view taken by the court below that the notice Has legally valid must he affirmed. 8. Learned counsel contended that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. No such plea was raised in the court below and naturally no issue on that point was framed. In the grounds of revision in this court, no such plea has been raised. I am not prepared to allow such a plea to be raised at the hearing of the revision. 9. It was next contended that the court below illegally rejected the application of the defendant to summon the postman as a witness. There is no substance in this grievance. If the defendants wanted to examine the postman as their witness, nothing prevented them from doing so at the proper stage. 10. The revision has no merits. It is dismissed, with costs.