Service of notice on one of the joint tenants is sufficient to terminate the tenancy of all the joint tenants, as there is a unity of interest, common enjoyment and possession of the property, and all the joint tenants hold qua landlord as one tenant.

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by original defendants 1 to 8 in an action for ejectment and recovery of possession of shop premises in Amravati town.

2. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 against 11 defendants. Their case was that the double-storeyed house described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was occupied by one Bhagwanbhai as a monthly tenant and the rent was Rs. 16/- per month. As the plaintiffs wanted to terminate the tenancy of Bhagwanbhai, they filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking his permission to terminate his tenancy. While those proceedings were pending in Revenue Case No. 552/71(2)/57-58, Bhagwanbhai died on 1st of March 1959. Thereafter defendants 1 to 11 were brought on record in those proceedings as heirs of Bhagwanbhai. Out of these defendants, defendant No. 1 is the widow of Bhagwanbhai, defendants 2 to 8 are sons, and defendants 9, 10 and 11 are daughters of the said Bhagwanbhai. Defendants 9 to 11 are married and residing with their husbands at different places outside Amravati. The Rent Controller granted permission to the plaintiffs on 30th June 1961. Thereafter the plaintiffs issued a notice on 10-7-61 through their pleader, addressed to all the 11 defendants. By this notice all the defendants were called upon to vacate the premises by the end of 4th August 1961. It is common ground that this notice was actually served on appellants 1 to 6 and respondents 3 and 4, i.e. two out of the married daughters by names Homibai and Narbadabai. It may be mentioned that appellants 7 and 8 are the minor sons of deceased Bhagwanbhai and their mother, appellant No. 1, is their guardian. The first notice itself was not served on respondent No. 5 Kanubai i.e. the third daughter of the deceased Bhagwanbhai, The plaintiffs therefore seem to have been advised to issue another notice. This notice was issued on 8-8-61. This notice was also addressed to all the 11 defendants and by this notice they were called upon to vacate by 4th September 1961. Now, this latter notice was however issued and served only on appellants nos. 7 and 8 i.e. the two minor boys, and respondent no. 5 i.e. defendant no. 11 Kanubai, the third daughter of Bhagwanbhai. Thereafter plaintiffs filed their suit on 20th September 1961.

3. A common defence was raised by defendants 1 to 8. No written statement was filed by defendants 9 to 11. The principal plank in the defence was that the plaintiffs had not duly terminated the lease of the defendants according to law. They alleged that defendants 1 to 6 reside together but the rest of the defendants were separate in their residence and mess. According to them, the tenancy could not be terminated piecemeal, and therefore on the facts alleged by the plaintiffs it was apparent that the tenancy of the joint tenants defendants 1 to 11 has not been terminated according to law.

4. This defence prevailed in the trial Court. That Court held that defendants 1 to 6 and 9 and 10 were served with notice dated 11-7-61, terminating the tenancy by the end of 4-8-61, but defendants 7, 8 and 11 were served by notice dated 8-8-61, terminating the tenancy by 4-9-61. According to the learned Judge of the trial Court, the proposition that service on one of the joint tenants should be presumed to be proof of service on all the others, was not warranted by the wording of second clause of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Judge held that so far as minor defts. 7 and 8 are concerned, service on their guardian i.e. defendant No. 1 was good service. But there being nothing on record to show that other defendants i.e. defendants 9, 10 and 11 who were married daughters, were served, the learned Judge held that the three married daughters i.e. defendants 9 to 11 who were residing with their husbands, are not of the family. It was held that the mere fact that these three defendants acquired the right of joint tenants by virtue of their right to succeed to the property of their father under the