K.B. Asthana, C.J. - (1.) A learned Single Judge noticing an apparent conflict between two decisions of this Court, namely Shafiqa and Ors. v. Maqsood Ahmad, 1970 AWR 100, decided by H.N. Seth, J. and Smt. Vishnawati v. Bhagwati Vithuchowdhri, 1969 ALJ 1131, decided by Gursaran Lal, J. referred the following two questions for answer by a Division Bench: 1. Whether in the case of heritable tenancy notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy served by name on only one of the heirs of the deceased tenant is effective in law to terminate the tenancy?
(2.) WHETHER a notice served on one of the heirs of a deceased tenant but addressed to all the heirs though not served on all of them, terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act will be effective in law for terminating the tenancy of all? 2. On the first question a Division Bench of this Court has already applied its mind - See Ramesh Chand Bose v. Gopeshwar Pd. Sharma : 1976 AWC 301. Since we do not find any circumstance to disagree with that decision of the Division Bench, we need not labour further in answering the first question. In view of the said decision, we answer the first question in the negative and against the landlord. Coming to the second question, it appears to us to be not so clear and direct in its phraseology. The intention seems to be that if a notice contains the names of all the co -tenants and was addressed to all of them but was sent only to one of them and served upon one co -tenant alone, whether it would be effective in law for terminating the tenancy of all. This is how we interpret the second question and propose to answer the same, Again, on this question we have the law explained by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Second Appeals Nos. 64 & 106 of 1966 : 1976 AWC 301. We think if a notice is addressed to all the cotenants but is sent only to one of them and is served upon him, it would be service of notice on all. It is not necessary in our opinion that there should be as many separate notices as there are co -tenants. What is material is that a notice must be addressed to all, showing the manifest intention of the landlord that he intends to terminate the tenancy of all at the same time. The aforesaid Division Bench noticed the case of Ajit Kumar Roy v. Smt. Satya Bala Dutt : AIR 1973 Cal 339. In that case the learned Judges had considered the Supreme Court decision in Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay : AIR 1963 SC 468, and held that the ratio of that decision was not applicable to cases where the lessees were co -tenants or tenants in common, but approved of the decision of the Calcutta High Court that the notice to quit if addressed to all the tenants holding in common but served on some of them was sufficient service and had the effect of terminating the tenancy. We respectfully agree with the decision of the Calcutta High Court. We answer the second question accordingly.
(3.) LET the papers of the case be now placed before the learned Single Judge for decision of the second appeal in accordance with law.;