JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - This is a defendants' revision arising out of a Small Cause Courts matter. The plaintiff Smt. Mithlesh Kumari filed a suit for eviction of the defendants from a residential house situate in Mohallah Gandhinagar Moradabad and for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 4622.50P and a sum of Rs. 750/- as compensation for use and occupation up to the date of the suit. Her allegations were that the defendants had defaulted in the payment of rent and that their tenancy had been terminated by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply since the constructions were made in the year 1971. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants, who pleaded that the aforesaid Act was applicable since the constructions were made in 1965-66. They also pleaded that notice had been served upon them and that the same was invalid. They further pleaded that the rent had been deposited in Court. It appears that the case has continued in the trial Court for over 3 years and the defendant No. 5 who was originally impleaded as a minor gave an application that he had become a major and along with it he filed a separate written statement, which was accepted by the Court on payment of costs to the plaintiff. In this written statement, it was pleaded that Smt. Rani Gupta, a sister of defendant No. 5 was also a tenant of the house in suit. Since she had not been impleaded the suit was not maintainable. 3. The Judge Small Cause decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of tenants as also for recovery of arrears of rent and compensation. Aggrieved thereby the instant revision has been filed in this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned judgment. 1 have also scrutinised the relevant papers from the record of the case. The trial Court has arrived the following findings : (a) that the disputed house was constructed on 1st April, 1970 and as such U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned judgment. 1 have also scrutinised the relevant papers from the record of the case. The trial Court has arrived the following findings : (a) that the disputed house was constructed on 1st April, 1970 and as such U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply. (b) that the notice to quit given under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was valid; (c) that the notice was served on the defendants, but in spite of it arrears of rent due, was not paid for 4 months thereof, and (d) that Smt. Rani Gupta had been married prior to the death of her father on 28th October 1974. 5. Counsel for the applicant has submitted firstly that the notice was not served on the defendants. In order to verify this question, I had summoned the record of the case and have scrutinised the same. The acknowledgment due receipts which has been filed and exhibited in the case clearly indicates that notice was personally served on the defendants. There is a very clear endorsement to that effect that by Smt. Suraj Devi, who is the widow of Ram Kumar and the other defendants I find no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that service was effected on the defendants. This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. It was next contended by the applicants' counsel that Suit. Rani Gupta also inherited the tenancy rights of her father, who has died on 28th October, 1974. His contention was that even if it be accepted that she was the married daughter, she still inherited tenancy rights. In other words he contended that Smt. Rani Gupta was a cotenant along with the other heirs of Ram Kumar. As such notice for ejectment should have been given to her and served upon her also. In the absence of Smt. Rani Gupta being made a party to the suit, the same was not maintainable and the suit was liable to be thrown out. 7. As such notice for ejectment should have been given to her and served upon her also. In the absence of Smt. Rani Gupta being made a party to the suit, the same was not maintainable and the suit was liable to be thrown out. 7. The Court below has considered this aspect of the matter and has come to the conclusion that Smt. Rani Gupta had been married prior to the death of Ram Kumar and that she was living with her husband elsewhere and was not in occupation of the house. The Court below was also of the opinion that if at all Rani Gupta would be deemed to have impliedly surrendered her tenancy rights after her marriage and that she would be no more a cotenant of the house in dispute. This finding which has been recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court has been severely assailed by the applicants' counsel. In this connection, it would be worthwhile to note that Smt. Rani Gupta has not herself come to Court seeking her impleadment in the suit. She has not come forward to claim any tenancy right. There is no objection on her part, no written statement and no complaint of infringement of her tenancy right. There is also nothing on record to indicate that she was in possession of the premises in question on the date of the suit. The material on record clearly indicate that defendant No. 5 was impleaded along with his other brother and mother as defendants to the suit. The suit was decreed exparte 011 two occasions and then subsequently restored. The hearing was prolonged in the trial Court for about 3 years, and when it reached final date of hearing, at that stage on 31st August, 1982, an application was filed by defendant No. 5 that he had become a major and that she should be permitted to file a separate written statement, which was in fact filed. 8. In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, arising out of the Small Cause Courts matter, it is imperative for this Court to see whether any mistake or error, if committed by the trial Court, is such as has caused injustice to the parties. So far as the case of defendant No. 5 is concerned, it can not be said that he has not been provided an adequate opportunity of defending his case. So far as the case of defendant No. 5 is concerned, it can not be said that he has not been provided an adequate opportunity of defending his case. If Smt. Rani Gupta had any grievance of the infringement of her legal rights, it is always open to her to come forward and to claim them in the proper forum. No error of procedure has been committed in the instant case. As a matter of fact on examining the documentary evidence I have come to the conclusion that the defendants have falsely denied the receipt of notices under Section 106 of the T.P. Act, which has been served upon them and which has been duly signed. Such false defences were obviously taken up for the purpose of somehow or the other protracting the litigation to the severe prejudice of the plaintiff. Revisional jurisdiction is not meant to be exercised in favour of a dishonest litigation. In a Division Bench case reported in Lakshmi Kishore v. S.P. Shukla, 1979 A.W.C. 746, it was observed that "the phrase according to law refers to the decision as a whole and is not to be equated to error of law or of facts simplicitor. The over-all decision must be according to law, i.e., there should be no miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law." 9. In this view of the matter, I do not find the instant case a fit one for interference. Before, however, concluding the judgment 1 would like to observe that the view of the Court below with regard to the surrender of tenancy rights by Smt. Rani Gupta by implication in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not appear to be incorrect. It is supported by these decisions of this Court, reported in 1978 Allahabad. Law Journal page 215, 1980, Allahabad page 266, and 1982, Allahabad Rent Cases page 78. 10. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for interference in revision. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Stay order dated 3.11.1982 passed by this Court is hereby vacated.