ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA J.

1. This second appeal is by some of the heirs of defendant no. 1 and is against the judgment of reversal.

2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for eviction against defendant no. 1 on the ground that he was a defaulter. The default was said to be the period from April, 1967 to May 1968.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit and held that there was no default. It also held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. It further held that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was not valid.

4. Thereafter plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the lower appellate court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal. It held that the defendants were the defaulters. It also held that after the death of the original defendant no. 1 and also in view of the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the original defendant, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendants. It further held that the plaintiffs had a perfect title over the house in question by virtue of their purchase and having held as such the lower appellate court direct