Oral agreement of permanent tenancy cannot be enforced.

1. Since all the three second appeals are connected they are disposed of together. S, A. 1760 of 1976 arises out of O.S. No. 293 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Ami, which was filed by Venkatalakshmi ammal and Vijayaraghavan Pillai for ejectment. S.A. 1761 and 1762 of 1976 arise out of two suits, O.S. No. 130 of 1974 and O.S. 542 of 1972, filed by one Narayani Ammal, who is the widow of the lessee of a plot of land, portions of which are subject matters in all the three suits. Before referring to the rival claims put forward by the parties in the said three suits, it is necessary to set out certain facts which gave rise to the disputes between the parties.

2. One Annamalai Pillai, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in S.A. 1760 of 1976 owned an extent of 1 acre, 7 cents in S. No. 321/1 and 1 acre in S. No. 319. On 19th January, 1940 under Ex. A.2 he leased out 80 cents in S. No. 321 and 70 cents in S. No. 319 to the husband of Narayaniammal on a monthly rent of Rs. 5 for a period of 15 years, Subscquently, under Ex. A1, dt. 19th January, 1955 an extent of 45 cents in S. No. 321/1 and 1 acre in S. No. 319 had been leased out for a further period of 5 years and the rent had been raised to Rs. T5. Portions of the said extent have, however, been sold to one Gopu alias Sadagopan and one Kannappa Mudaliar by the lessor The wife of the lessee under Ex. A1 has filed O.S. No. 130 of 1974 against the purchasers Gopu alias Sadagopan and Kannappa Mudaliar for a declaration that she continues to be a lessee of the properties notwithstanding the sale in their favour. The purchasers in turn, filed a suit, O.S. No. 542 of 1972, along with their vendor against Narayani Ammal for recovery of properties purchased by them. The lessor had filed the suit O.S. No. 293 of 1973 for recovery of possession of entire 45 cents on the ground that the lease in favour of Narayani Ammal had been terminated, and therefore, the is bound to deliver possession of the properties. Thus, all the three suits are in respect of portions of the same property. Therefore, there was a joint trial in all the three suits Since the suit O. S. 293 of 1973 is a comprehensive one, wherein the lessor sues his lessee for ejectment from the properties leased out to him, and the other suits are merely offshoots, I propose to deal with the contentions of the parties in that suit.

3. The plaintiff in that suit, as already stated, is the lessor and he seeks recovery of possession of the properties from his lessee, on the ground that the lease in favour of the defendant had been terminated. It has been alleged in the plaint that though originally, after the expiry of the second lease under Ex.A1, the lease should be taken from month to month, and the lease having been terminated by an issue of notice under the Transfer of Property Act, the lessee is liable to deliver possession of the property to the lessor. The case of the defendant is that as a successor-in-interest of the original lessee, he is in occupation of the land measuring 420 ft -210 ft, that is, an extent of 1.45 cents, that she is willing to buy the entire leasehold lands, that the suit is bad for want of proper notice of termination of tenancy and that in any event, the lessor having agreed to continue as a lessee without any limit of time, she cannot be evicted from the suit premises,

4. Evidence was adduced by the both the parties in support of their respective contentions. After considering the entire evidence, the trial Court held that the notice terminating the tenancy is not proper, and that there should be at least three months notice before termination as required under S. 106, Transfer Property Act, The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the lease in favour of the defendant has not been properly terminated. It also dismissed the other suit, O. S. 130 of 1974, holding that the properties sold to Gopu alias Sadagopan and Kannappa Mudaliar are not