Service of a notice to quit on one of several joint tenants or tenants in common is sufficient to bind all of them, as long as the notice is addressed to all the tenants and the intention to bind them is clear from the notice itself.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendants and it arises out of a suit for ejectment.

( 2 ) THE suit premises consists of three floors in premises No. 8/1, Baithakkhana First Lane now known as Debendra Nath Roy Lane. The plaintiff purchased the said premises on September 30, 1959. She instituted the suit on March 22, 1962. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff with the members of her family have been residing in a rented house and that she reasonably requires the suit premises for the use and occupation of herself and the members of her family. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants are defaulters in payment of rent. The tenancy of the defendants were determined by the plaintiff by the service of a notice to quit, but the defendants not having vacated the suit premises, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by some of the defendants. It has been alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit premises, but she is the Benamdar of her husband and that she does not reasonably require the suit premises for the use and occupation of herself and the members of her family. The defendants have challenged the legality and validity of the notice to quit and have denied the service thereof on the defendants.

( 4 ) AT the trial of the suit, the plaintiff abandoned her case for ejectment on the ground of default. The learned Judge has found that the members of the family of the plaintiff consists of herself, her husband, her four sons, one unmarried daughter, the wife of one of her sons Ganesh and his son and her husband's elder brother. There arc, therefore, nine members in the family of the plaintiff. It has also been found that the plaintiff's husband and her son Ganesh carry on fish business. The learned Judge has observed that the plaintiff has been living a miserable life in the rented house. Ganesh sleeps with his wife and son in one room and the other members of the family sleep in a passage. It is not disputed that in the ground floor, there are three bed rooms, one kitchen, two bathrooms and one latrine; the first floor consists of four bed rooms, one kitchen, one latrine and a roof and the second floor consists of one bed room, one stair-case room. The learned Judge has come to the finding that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises, but the requirement of the plaintiff will be substantially satisfied by partial eviction of the defendants. It has also been found and now there is no dispute that excepting the defendant No. 2, the other defendants do not live in the suit premises. Upon considering the number of members in the family of the defendant No. 2, the learned Judge holds that the defendants' requirement will be substantially met if they are given two big rooms, one kitchen, one bed room and one latrine in the ground floor of the suit premises. The contention of the defendants that if they are given the first floor rooms they may give up possession of the ground floor and the second floor has been rejected by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has overruled the plea of the defendants that the plaintiff is only a Benamdar of her husband.

( 5 ) REGARDING the question as to the service of the notice to quit and the legality thereof, it may be stated, that it has not been disputed before us that the notice to quit had been served on the defendants Nos. 1. 2, 7 and 8. Regarding the other defendants, the notice to quit came back undelivered with the remark of the postal peon 'left'. The learned Judge has held that the defendants were joint tenants and that the service of notice on one joint tenant is sufficient. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge has held that the plaintiff has been able to prove service of notice to quit on the defendants. He has further found that the notice to quit is legal and valid.

( 6 ) IT appears from order No. 90 dated April 5, 1965, that the defendants were not agre