Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The only point sought to be urged against the appellate order affirming the trial court's decree for eviction is that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued by a person who had no contractual or other relationship with the appellant-defendant.
(2.) It is not in dispute that one Girish Chandra Jana had let out the southern portion of his property to the appellant herein. During the subsistence of the tenancy, the said Jana transferred the entirety of his interest in the property by two several documents; one pertaining to the northern portion of the premises in favour of the plaintiff no. 1; and, the other in respect of the southern portion in favour of the plaintiff nos. to 4.
(3.) The notice under Section 106 of the said Act was issued by all the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the appellant that since original owner Jana did not sell his undivided interest in the property to the plaintiffs but transferred a demarcated portion thereof to the first plaintiff and the balance to the other plaintiffs, all the plaintiffs could not have joined in issuing the notice to the appellant or as plaintiffs in the suit.;