( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff.

( 2 ) A very interesting point of law is raised in this case. A house, situate at khazanchi lane Sarafa Bazar Chowk, Bhopal, was owned by Alamdar Hussain and his family. In part of the house, Radhavallabh, the defendant No. 1, was a tenant. The whole of the house was sold in different lots to 8 persons. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 purchased in different lots the portion occupied by the defendant No. 1. Out of the portion let out to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had purchased the portion marked as No. 8 in the plaint map and more fully described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The plaintiff desired to rebuild the house which is in a dilapidated condition and hence gave a quit notice to the defendant No. 1 and filed the suit for ejectment. The defendant had also not Paid the rent from the date of the transfer till the date of the suit. Hence a decree for proportionate rent was also claimed and the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were added as parties to the suit because they had also claim over part of rent and were entitled to be heard on the question of apportionment of rent.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff alone could not have terminated the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 vis-a-vis the portion purchased by him. That court, however, held that if the notice would have been held to be valid, the plaintiff would have been entitled to the relief of ejectment of the defendant No. 1. The trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent. Even on the finding that the notice was not valid, the decree for arrears of rent could not have been set aside by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court, however, in a hurry failed to take note of this fact also and dismissed the plaintiff's suit entirely.

( 4 ) IN support of the finding that the notice was invalid, the lower appellate Court relied on the decisions of this Court in Abdul Hamid v. Bhuvaneshwar Prasad, AIR 1953 Nag 18 prabhakar v. Smt. Juggobai, 1959 MPLJ (Notes) 75 and narayansingh v. Krishnasewak, 1962 MPLJ (Notes) 345, as also on the decision of the Assam High Court in Arunchandra Doverah v. Panchu Modak, AIR 1957 Assam

70. In the cases of AIR 1953 Nag 18; 1959 MPLJ (Notes) 75 (supra), the position was that the tenancy was created by joint landlords. One of the landlords not having any defined share in the property was held to be disentitled to terminate the tenancy. In those cases the question whether on the transfer of the property by the sole landlord to other persons in parts as contemplated under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act a severance of the tenancy was created or not was not before the Court for consideration. Those cases are, therefore, of no use in deciding the question before me. In the Assam Case. AIR 1957 Assam 70 (supra), the defendant was a tenant in respect of certain land owned by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8. Subsequently, some portion of the land fell to the share of the plaintiff at a partition, The notice to quit by the plaintiff in respect of the land fallen to his share was held to be invalid. In the Assam Case there is no discussion. The only observation in the case is:-

". . . . . . . . . we think that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the entire area claimed, and that a notice to quit in respect of the 13 lessas of land only could not be a valid notice to quit and, therefore, the plaintiff could not sue to eject the defendant merely from the land in suit. "

That decision is also, therefore, not helpful in deciding the controversy before me.

( 5 ) SHRI R. C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act a transfer of property by lessor of the part thereof is envisaged and when such a transfer takes place, the transferee possesses all the rights and if the lessee so elects be su