ORDER A. N. Varma, J. - The three petitioners herein were arrayed as defendants in a suit filed by the respondents Nos. 3 to 14 for ejectment from a residemtial accommodation. The first two petitioners were arrayed respectively as defendants nos.2 and 3 while the third petitioner was arrayed as defendant no. 1. The suit was contested only by the first two petitioners. The third petitioner did not contest the suit but has chosen to join the other petitioners in this petition. The trial court dismissed the suit for ejectment but decreed it for arrears of rent against the third defendant Smt. Mithlesh Kumari Sharma. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a revision under S. 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act which has been allowed by the impugned order. The revisional court has decreed the suit for ejectment of all the three petitioners as well as for the recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation against the third respondent. 2. Shortly stated, the plaint case was that the accommodation in dispute had been let out to the defendant no.l, who had without the consent of the plaintiff unlawfully sub-let a portion of the accommodation consisting of two rooms, sahan and a bathroom to the defendants nos. 2 and 3. The defendant no.l had also fallen in arrears of rent with effect from 1-1-1966. The plaintiffs therefore served a notice of demand and termination of tenancy on the defendant no. 1 on 21-3 1974. Despite that notice, however, the defendant no.l neither paid the arrearsoi rent nor vacated the accommodation. Hence, the suit. 3. The defence of the petitioners nos.I and 2 was that they were in possession of two rooms and a sahen along with a bathroom for the past nine years as tenants directly from the plaintiffs on a monthly rental of Rs.15/- and that they were not the sub-tenants of the defendant no. 1, namely, Smt. Mithlesh Kumari Sharma. 4. The trial court held that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were not the subtenants of defendant no.l but were the tenants of the plaintiffs themselves. It further held that the notice purporting to terminate the tenancy of the defendant no. 1 was invalid, inasmuch as according to the trial court all the co-owners had not been joined in the notice. 2 and 3 were not the subtenants of defendant no.l but were the tenants of the plaintiffs themselves. It further held that the notice purporting to terminate the tenancy of the defendant no. 1 was invalid, inasmuch as according to the trial court all the co-owners had not been joined in the notice. With these findings the suit for ejectment was dismissed but it was decreed for the recovery of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 522.50 against the defendant no.l. 5. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a revision, which as mentioned above, has been allowed. The revisional court set aside the findings of the trial court and held that the defendants nos. 2 and 3 were not the tenants of the plaintiffs. They were on the facts and circumstances established on the record in occupation of a portion of the building which was let out to the defendant no.l. It accepted the case of the plaintiffs about illegal sub-letting and on that finding decreed the suit for ejectment. It also upheld the validity of the notice. The net result was that suit for ejectment as well as for recovery of aarrears of rent and damages for use and occupation was decreed by the revisional court. 6. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the revisional court had no jurisdiction, having regard to the scope of section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act to set aside the finding recorded by the trial court on the issue of sub-letting. I find no merit in this submission. 7. The revisional court has set aside the findings of the trial court on the ground that they were based on misreading of evidence and were contrary to law. The learned Additional District Judge has pointed out that the trial court wrongly assumed that even though the plaintiffs had come to know in the year 1972 that the defendants nos. 2 and 3 had occupied a portion of the accommodation in dispute without their consent,while giving the notice dated 18-9-1972 (paper no.25-C) they (plaintiffs) made no mention of that fact in that notice. In paragraph 5 of that notice the plaintiffs had specifically mentioned that the tenant had unlawfully sub-let a portion of the premises to other persons and the tenant had thereby rendered himself liable to ejectment. In paragraph 5 of that notice the plaintiffs had specifically mentioned that the tenant had unlawfully sub-let a portion of the premises to other persons and the tenant had thereby rendered himself liable to ejectment. The revisional court has rightly commented that the trial court had not bothered even to read the notice carefully. The trial Court had clearly misread paper no. 25-C. 8. Another instance of misreading of the evidence is that the trial court referred to the statement of Satya Prakash (P. W. 1) and observed that P.W.l had unequivocally admitted that the defendants nos. 2 and 3 were the tenants of the plaintiffs. A copy of the statement of P. W. 1 was produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing of this petition. I have perused that statement and find that there is no such admission made by the plaintiffs. The decision of the trial court was thus vitiated in law being based upon misreading of the evidence on record. The revisional court was therefore well within the bounds of its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the trial Court. 9. The revisional court is also right in observing that the decision of the trial court was contrary to law. The defendant no. 1 was admittedly in possession of the house as a tenant when the defendants nos. 2 and 3 are alleged to have come to occupy a part thereof. There was, however, nothing on the record to suggest whether, when and how defendant no. 1 had surrendered any part of the tenancy rights entitling the plaintiffs to admit defendants nos.2 and 3 as tenants over a portion of the building. The revisional court has rightly stressed this aspect. The tenancy of the defendant no. 1 being admitted to the defendants nos. 2 and 3, in the absence of any pleadings or evidence indicating how that tenancy came to end there could not be any superimposition of a fresh tenancy. The case of the defendants nos. 2 and 3 wps thus rightly rejected by the revisional court. 10. Apart from errors pointed out by the revisional Court, I find that the decision of the trial Court is based entirely . on unwarranted conjectures and surmises. Throughout the judgment the trial court has harped upon the absence of the plaintiffs to serve any notice on defendants nos. 2 and 3. 10. Apart from errors pointed out by the revisional Court, I find that the decision of the trial Court is based entirely . on unwarranted conjectures and surmises. Throughout the judgment the trial court has harped upon the absence of the plaintiffs to serve any notice on defendants nos. 2 and 3. Not being their tenants, the plaintiffs were not obliged to serve any notice on defendants nos. 2 and 3. It was sufficient if the plaintiffs served a notice on the defendant no. 1. The trial court was also wrong in its premises that the plaintiffs had not protested against the defendants nos. 2 and 3 having occupied a portion which formed part of the tenancy of defendant no. 1. The plaintiffs did portest in their notice dated 18-2-1972 referred to above against the defendant no. 1 for having sublet the accommodation. The trial court wrongly assumed that the plaintiffs' had been sleeping over their rights. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court further shows that its finding that the defendants nos. 2 and 3 were tenants directly from the plaintiffs is on the face of it, perverse and cannot be sustained. After holding that the defendants nos. 2 and 3 were not the subtenants of defendant no. 1, the trial court jumped to the conclusion that the defendants nos. 2 and 3 were tenants directly from the plaintiffs without bothering to find out as to how the tenancy was created or superimposed over an existing tenancy in favour of the defendant no. 1. It did not care to enquire whether there was any evidence in support of that plea. This Court therefore holds that the conclusions reached by the revisional court are perfectly sound and proper, legally as well as on the evidence, and call for no interference by this Court. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the statement of Satya Prakash (P. W.l) to the effect that the defendants 2 and 3 were not the sub-tenants of the defendant no. 1. I have perused that statement. The learned counsel obviously overlooked the context in which the said statement was made. What the P. W. 1. was asserting was that the contract of sub-tenancy was not settled in his presence. As has been stressed so often, it is not always possible to prove a contract of sub-tenancy by direct evidence. 1. I have perused that statement. The learned counsel obviously overlooked the context in which the said statement was made. What the P. W. 1. was asserting was that the contract of sub-tenancy was not settled in his presence. As has been stressed so often, it is not always possible to prove a contract of sub-tenancy by direct evidence. In most cases it is clandestine affair for obvious reasons, and, has therefore to be proved by circumstantial evidence. The plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing such circumstances. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that though the plea of the defendants nos. 2 and 3 in the courts below was that defendant no. 1 was in collusion with the plaintiffs and though the defendant no.l did not file any written statement, the defendant no.l is found in the company of the defendants nos.2 and 3 in this petition as petitioner no.3. 12. Relying on a decision reported in 1979 (U.P.) Ren. C. C. 58 : (1979 All L J 201) the learned counsel also submitted that mere exclusive possession is not sufficient to justify the conclusion by sub-tenancy. The said decision is not of much assistance as the conclusion that the defendants nos. 2 and 3 were illegally inducted as subtenants by Over defendant no. 1 is supported not only by exclusive possession but other facts and circumstances referred to by the revisional court.-The finding of the revisional court on the question of sub-tenancy does not in my opinion suffer from error of law. 13. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the notice purporting to determine the tenancy of the defendant no. 1 had not been proved to have been given on behalf of all the co-lessors and the finding of the revisional court to the contrary is manifestly unsustainable. I am unable to accept this contention. The notice in question had been given by Sri B. B. Lal Advocate in which he stated that he was giving the notice to determine the tenancy of the said defendants on behalf of all the co-lessors. The evidence led by the plaintiffs fully established that the said notice has been given with the consent of all the co-lessors. The learned council, however, emphasised that Satya Prakash (P. W. 1) admits that he had not individually contacted and obtained the consent of all the co-lessors. The evidence led by the plaintiffs fully established that the said notice has been given with the consent of all the co-lessors. The learned council, however, emphasised that Satya Prakash (P. W. 1) admits that he had not individually contacted and obtained the consent of all the co-lessors. Consequently it could not be said that the notice had been given on behalf of all. I find no substance in this objection. P. W. 1 has clearly stated that he had obtained the consent of all the co-landlords personally except Promod Kumar, Prabhat Kumar and Smt. Shanti Gupta. In regard to these three persons the Statement of P. W. 1 was that Anil Kumar Gupta, one of the co-landlords had conveyed to him the consent of these remaining three landlords also. This was sufficient evidence to establish that the notice has been given with the consent of all the co-landlords. I do not agree that Satya Prakash should have personally contacted each of the landlords individually for obtaining their consent. There is, therefore, no merit in the second submission also. 14. No other point was urged in support of the petition. 15. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but I make no order as to costs. 16. The petitioners are, however, granted three months within which they will hand over vacant possession of the accommodation to the plaintiffs-respondents. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly induct any other person into the accommodation or otherwise part with the same except in favour of the plaintiffs-respondent.