( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment of two defendants who were tenants in the accommodation to which the suit relates. The only question which was pressed in this second appeal relates to the validity of the notice. The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of property Act was sent to both the tenants under one registered cover, the names of both the tenants being mentioned as addressees over the same. The registered cover was tendered by the postman to only one of them, but he refused to accept service, me first contention on behalf of the appellants was that The notice was never tendered to the other tenant and there was, therefore, no service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on him. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned, the point is fully covereo by the decision of this Court in Liladhar Pandey v. Ramji Dass, 1956 All LJ 650. It was held by Upadhya J. in that case that where in case of a joint lease a notice is addressed to all the joint lessees, but is served only on one of them, there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, and I agree with respect, with th