Sultan Singh, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the appellants under Order 22 rules 4 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC. Respondent No. 1 had previously filed a petition for eviction of the appellants and respondent No. 2 on grounds of non-payment, subletting, assignment and parting with possession. Respondent No. 1 made an application in that case (S. A. O. No. 174 of 1980) for bringing on record the legal heirs of Ram Lal, deceased respondent who had died on 2-5-1981. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants came to know about the death of Ram Lal respondent from the application C. M. No. 2817/81 in SAO 174 of 1980) in re : Ram Nath Chitkara v. H. M. Doyal and Co. filed by respondent No. 1. He submits that no relief has been claimed against the deceased respondent Ram Lal but still there is sufficient cause for setting aside the abatement as the appellant did not know the death of respondent No. 2 Ram Lal as they had no connection whatsoever and they only learnt about his death from the application of respondent No. 1 dated 10-8-1981. It is submitted that (i) Shri Krishan Gopal, (ii) Shri Jagdish Kumar Kalra and (iii) Shri Kanwal Kumar Kalra are the sons of the deceased respondent Ram Lal. It is further submitted that Ram Lal never contested the eviction proceedings. He never filed any written statement and therefore it is also not necessary to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased respondent No. 2 under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 submits that the appeal has abated, as the present application was filed on 28-8-1981. It appears that Ram Lal is a proforma respondent in this appeal. The present eviction proceedings are on ground of non-payment of rent. Ram Lal is alleged to be a sub-tenant and he was not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings on ground of nonpayment of rent. It has been held in Jagjot Singh v. Hafiz Mohd. Said and another, ILR 1973 (1) Delhi 656 that sub-tenants are not necessary parties to the appeal and the appeal is competent and has not abated for failure to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased sub-tenant. It has been held in Jagjot Singh v. Hafiz Mohd. Said and another, ILR 1973 (1) Delhi 656 that sub-tenants are not necessary parties to the appeal and the appeal is competent and has not abated for failure to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased sub-tenant. It has been observed that if the ejectment suit against the tenant is dismissed a decree passed against the sub tenant is ineffective and cannot be successfully executed. In that case it has been observed that even if the appeal against the sub-tenant, has abated, the appeal would be competent against the surviving respondent and the appellant can be allowed the reliefs claimed in the appeal. ( 3 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the persent case, I am therefore of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for not filing the application under Order 22 rule 4 Civil Procedure Code. for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent Ram Lal. In any case as Ram Lal was not a necessary party no perjudice would be caused to respondent No. 1 if his heirs are brought on record. ( 4 ) I therefore condone the delay in filing the present application and order that the names of the three sons i e. (i) Shri Krishan Gopal (ii) Jagdish Kumar Kalra and (iii) Kanwal Kumar of late Ram Lal be brought on record. Necessary corrections be made in the memo of parties by the registry.