Sharad Manohar, J. - (1.) The question involved in this writ petition is completely set at rest by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1745.
(2.) The few facts which are necessary for formulating the question are as follows : "The house in which the suit premises are situate belonged to one Papa Ramjan. It is a finding of fact recorded by the Lower Appellate Court that the respondent (who would he hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and one other person were two tenants of two differents tenements in the said house and the suit premises were in the possession of defendant tenant. By a registered sale-deed dated 2-8-1967, the petitioner (who will be referred to hereinafter as the plaintiff) purchased the house from said Papa Ramjan. In the said sale-deed itself the fact that the defendant and other person were the two tenants in the suit house was mentioned. After taking the sale-deed the plaintiff informed the defendant, by giving a notice in that behalf, about his purchase of the suit house. He also informed that he was accepting her as his tenant with effect from 28-8- 1967 and called upon her to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. Since the defendant did not pay anything towards the rent the plaintiff gave her a notice dated 11-5-1971, demanding arrears of rent which arrears were due by her from 28-8-1967. He also called upon her to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises. The defendant paid no deeds to the said notice gave no reply, nor did she comply with the requisition contained in the said notice. The result was that the suit put of which present petition arises had to be filed by the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises from the defendant on the ground that she had committed default in the payment of rent for a period exceeding six months, the notice given by the plaintiff under section 12(2) of the Act notwithstanding."
(3.) The defendant's defence to the suit was that it was not she but her husband who was the tenant of the suit premises. She therefore con-tended that neither the notice under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act that the under section 12(2) of Property Act nor the one under section 12(2) of the Rent Act was a valid notice. She further contended that she was never liable to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. She also denied the validity of the notice of termination.;