G.P.Singh, C.J. - (1.)Second Appeals Nos. 445 of 1975 and 446 of 1975 were heard together by Sohani J. who, by his order dated 20th February 1978, referred to a Full Bench the following common question of law arising in these appeals:
"Whether a transferee of a part of the property leased can terminate the lease with respect to the part transferred to him by giving a quit notice to the tenant?"

(2.)The facts giving rise to the afore said question are as follows: Rai Bahadur Seth Hiralal was the owner of an open plot of land bearing Municipal No. 15, situated at Nalia Bakhal, Indore. The plot was let out to Sardarilal who is the appellant in both these appeals on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Narayanlal purchased southern half portion of the plot from Seth Hiralal on 16th September, 1967. The remaining half of the plot r was sold on the same date by Seth Hiralal to Mohanlal. Narayanlal and Mohanlal issued separate notices on 16th February 1968 determining the tenancy of Sardarilal with respect to the half portion of the plot purchased by each with effect from 31st March 1968. The notice issued by Narayanlal was on his behalf and signed by him alone, and similarly the notice issued by Mohanlal was on his behalf and signed by him alone. Two separate suits were then filed, one by Narayanlal and the other by Mohanlal. on the same date for ejectment of Sardarilal. ' The suit filed by Narayanlal relates to the half portion purchased by him, and similarly the suit filed by Mohanlal relates to the other half portion purchased by him. The appellant Sardarilal in both the suits challenged the validity of the notices terminating his tenancy. It was contended by him that a transferee of a part of the leased property could not alone terminate the tenancy with respect to the part transferred to him; and as the notices were separate notices with respect to the parts transferred to each of the transferees, the notices were invalid. This contention was negatived by the trial Court, and both the suits were decreed. The decrees were upheld by the first appellate Court. Sardarilal then filed these second appeals. The same contention was repeated before Sohani J. when the appeals came up for hearing before him. The point was concluded against the appellant by a Division Bench decision in B.P. Pathak v. Dr. Riyazuddin (1976 MPLJ 9 : AIR 1976 Madh Pra 55). Sohani J., however, was of opinion that the said decision required, reconsideration by a Full Bench. It is for this reason that he made this reference.
(3.)Before we take up the consideration of the question of law referred, we may state that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these appeals submitted before us that the two notices should be read together and that the effect of the two notices is that the whole of the tenancy of the appellant stood terminated by a joint action taken by the transferees. In our opinion, it is not open to us to examine this submission. The learned single Judge in the order of reference considered this argument and came to the conclusion that it was not correct to read the notices together and to convert them into a composite notice issued by both the transferees covering the entire leased property. To quote his words: "By combining the two notices given separately by each plaintiff to the defendant, a court would be reconstructing a notional notice and on the basis of such a notional notice, it cannot be held that the defendant's tenancy was validly determined." The reference made to the Full Bench by the learned single Judge does not cover the correctness of this finding reached by him. We can only answer the question of law referred to us on the assumption that the view taken by the learned single Judge that the two notices cannot be read together so as to constitute them as one notice is correct.