1. By consent of both the counsel, the second appeals themselves are taken up for final disposal.

2. The short question involved in these second appeals is: Whether the suit is not maintainable on the ground of want of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

.3. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 269 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Sathiyamangalam. They filed the suit for recovery of possession against the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant is a tenant and in a panchayat convened among the parties, he has agreed to vacate and deliver vacant possession by 31. 1993. Since, the appellant failed to handover possession on that day, the respondents herein filed the above said suit for recovery of possession.

4. The appellant contested the suit contending that the panchayat would create a new lease even though the panchayat Muchalika was entered into, wherein the appellant had agreed to vacate and handover possession by 31. 1993, subsequently there was an oral lease between the parties, whereby the respondents have extended the lease period for a period of further three years and as such the appellant