( 1 ) THE questions that arise for consideration in this Second Appeal are - (i) whether Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Acf) applies to a tenancy holding over and (ii) whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are as follows:- The plaint schedule property consists of two mulgies and vacant space of 90 square yards. The suit was filed for eviction of the tenant on the ground that there was an oral tenancy between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Originally the lease was by way of written instrument executed under Ex. A-11 dated 1-11-1973 in respect of 90 square yards and the last date of the lease period was specified as 31-10-1974. Similarly another lease deed was executed under Ex. A-12 dated 1-11-1973 for the two mulgies and the last date of the lease period was specified as 30-9-1974. The appellants issued a notice terminating the tenancy with effect from 30-9-1979 and filed the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 27-2-1985 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. On appeal, the Additional Chief Judge-cum-II additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, remanded the same for fresh disposal in accordance with law, as the trial Court tried the suit only on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. After remand the VI Assistant Judge decree the suit holding that the notice was proper and valid and that the civil Court has jurisdiction. On appeal, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, set aside the decree on the ground that the notice was invalid and the civil Court has jurisdiction, against which the present Second Appeal was filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit even in respect of the suit mulgies and that Section 110 of the Act is applicable to the tenancy holding over and, therefore, the notice is invalid. In support of his view, he relief on a judgment of the Supreme Court in dattonpant vs. Vithal Rao. The learned Judge distinguished the decision of mr. Justice Chowdary, reported in M/s. P. S. P. Seshagiri Rao and Co. , vs. Kalabai rathi. The learned Judge observed:-"it is thus very clear that the case before the Supreme Court was holding over the property and continuing in possession under Section 116 of the act only. Those facts are as in the facts of the present case also. Dealing with those facts the Supreme Court held that Section 110 of the Act applies to such tenancies and the date of commencement of the tenancy has to be excluded in computing the time limited by the lease. Therefore, the first day of the month has to be excluded and the tenancy must be terminated only on the 1st of the month. In this case the plaintiffs have given the notice terminating the tenency by 30-9-1979 but the notice must terminate the tenancy only on 1-10-1979. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the notice to quit issued by the plaintiffs under Ex. A-8 is invalid as it is not in accordance with Section 106 read with Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs however argued that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has to be followed. But when there is a direct binding pronouncement of the apex Court it is to be followed by this Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the decision of the High Court in Seshagiri Rao vs. Kalabai rathi (AIR 1982 A. P. 186 ). I am therefore of the opinion that the notice under Ex. A-8 issued by the plaintiffs terminating the tenancy is not valid in law. "

( 4 ) IT is the above findings of the learned Judge that are now under appeal.

( 5 ) THE main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that section 110 of the Act is not applicable to a tenancy holding over and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dattonpant vs. Vithal Rao (supra) did not extend Section 110 of the Act to a tenancy holding over and t