JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J.- This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration of his right to evict the defendants no. 1 and 3 in pursuance of a decree in suit no. 65 of 1961 of the Court of the Civil Judge. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the property belonged to a waqf and Lalloo Mal was a tenant of the premises in suit. His tenancy was monthly. Lalloo Mal died in the year 1946 and his tenancy came to an end. Subsequently his son, Mahendra Nath defendant no. 2, wanted to become a tenant and late Mutawalli Sheikh Nawab Mohammad Ibrahim accepted him as a tenant. It was alleged that the tenancy of Mahendra Nath was in the knowledge of the defendant no. 1, Jogendra Nath who did not raise any objection against it. Subsequently, the terms of the tenancy was revised and the rent enhanced. Thereafter Mahendra Nath fell into arrears of rent, hence suit no. 903 of 1957 was filed to recover the rent in arrears and the same was decreed on 7.4.1958 in terms of a compromise between the parties. It was asserted that Mahendra Nath again fell into arrears of rent and suit no. 551 of 1959 was filed which was also decreed on 7.11.1959. It was then stated that Mahendra Nath again defaulted in payment of rent and hence a composite notice of the arrears of rent and termination of his tenancy was served on him. This time suit no. 65 of 1961 was filed against Mahendra Nath for arrears of rent and ejectment which was finally decreed on 6.11.1961. It was alleged that Mahendra Nath vacated the premises but Jagendra Nath, his brother, denied and resisted the execution of the decree in the suit. The plaintiff thereupon moved an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the said application was rejected by the court holding that Jagandra Nath was in possession in good faith and had a claim as heir of deceased Lalloo Mal and was not in possession on behalf of bis brother, Mahendra Nath. 3. Jagendra Nath, the defendant contested the suit. 3. Jagendra Nath, the defendant contested the suit. He asserted that the deceased Lalloo Mal, father of Mahendra Nath and Jagendra Nath, was a tenant of the premises and on his death both Jagendra Nath and Mahendra Nath inherited the tenancy. The separate tenancy of Mahendra Nath was denied. The notice of termination of tenancy served on Mahendra Nath was said to be bad as it was not addressed to Jagendra Nath also. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit. 5. Aggrieved the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court found that Lalloo Mal was a tenant of the premises and after his death both Mahendra Nath and Jagendra Nath had become tenants. It has also found that the original rate of rent was Rs. 75/- which had been subsequently enhanced by agreement between the landlord and the tenant to Rs. 175/- per month. It has found that there was no collusion between the plaintiff and Mahendra Nath when the earlier decrees in the suit filed by the plaintiff was made. It has found that the notice served by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy of Mahendra Nath alone was a good notice. It accordingly decreed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court, Jagendra Nath has come up in appeal. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel that on death of Lalloo Mal both the brothers; namely Mahendra Nath and Jagendra Nath, become tenants of the premises in suit in their own rights as heirs of Lalloo Mal and as such the notice served on Mahendra Nath alone could not terminate the tenancy of Jagendra Nath. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, urges that the original tenancy inherited by the two brothers-Mahendra Nath and Jagendra Nath-consequent upon the death of Lalloo Mal came to an end on a fresh contract of tenancy being executed and the rate of rent was enhanced from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 175/- and the tenant was given the right of sub-letting to tenant. In support of this argument the learned counsel relies upon a decision in the case of Abdul Ghafoor and another v. Lal Kunj Behari Lal and another (AIR 1957 Allahabad 346), wherein it was held that a permanent tenancy must be deemed to have been impliedly surrendered when the landlord and tenant entered into a new agreement. In support of this argument the learned counsel relies upon a decision in the case of Abdul Ghafoor and another v. Lal Kunj Behari Lal and another (AIR 1957 Allahabad 346), wherein it was held that a permanent tenancy must be deemed to have been impliedly surrendered when the landlord and tenant entered into a new agreement. In that case the learned Judge quoted with approval the following passage from Rehman's Law of Landlord and Tenant 8th Edition at page 562. "There cannot be two concurrent tenancies of the same premises, and, therefore, if during the continuance of a lease the surrendered by operation of law ; or in other words, the tenant having assented is estopped from afterwards denying the landlord a power to grant the new lease which he could only do, assuming the old lease to be surrendered And this is so, whether the new lease is to the tenant himself or to himself jointly with a third person. It is immaterial that the new lease is for a less term than the "unexpired residue of the old one, for a term of a hundred years would be surrendered if there was new demise for a week." 9. He also quoted (sic) Landlord and Tenant Edn. 6, at page 695 as under : "The reason why this operates as a surrender is that the lessee, by accepting the new lease, has been party to an act the validity of which he is by law afterwards estopped from disputing, and which would not be valid if the first lease continued to exist ; and as the lessor could not grant the new lease until the prior one had been surrendered, the acceptance "of such new lease is of itself a surrender of the former." 10. In this view of law it is clear that after a fresh contract of tenancy had come into existence Mahendra Nath and Jagendra Nath became joint tenants. In the case of Radhey Lal Mannia Lal v. Bimal Kumar Jain ( 1979 AWC 284 ) a Division bench of this Court held that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy addressed to one of the joint tenants was a valid notice. In the case of Radhey Lal Mannia Lal v. Bimal Kumar Jain ( 1979 AWC 284 ) a Division bench of this Court held that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy addressed to one of the joint tenants was a valid notice. It was also held that it was not necessary that such a notice must be addressed to all joint tenants, Mahendra Nath and Jagendra Nath being joint tenants, the notice terminating under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act sent by the landlord to Mahendra Nath was a valid notice and merely because Jagendra Nath was also not served with a notice, he is not protected from ejectment. 11. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the decree in whose execution the respondent landlord seeks his eviction was a collusive decree obtained by the landlord against Mahendra Nath. The trial court has given various reasons for coming to the conclusion that the decree was a collusive decree. However, the lower appellate court has come to a contrary conclusion. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that all the reasons given by the trial court for coming to the conclusion that the decree was a collusive decree have not been met by the lower appellate court in the judgment. The lower appellate court as a court of appeal assessed the facts differently and came to the decision that the decree was not collusive. This finding is based on the evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse. As a finding of fact it cannot be challenged in the second appeal. 12. In the result, the appeal falls and is dismissed with costs.