The defendant-appellant has preferred this Second Appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1985/16 3.1985 passed by the Assistant District Judge No, l, Gauhati in little Appeal No.64 of 1984 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree in Title Suit No.7 of 1984 (original Title Suit No.248/1983) of the Court of Munsiff No.2, Gauhati. 2. The suit house/room is situated outside the urban area. The defendant was a tenant in the suit house at a monthly basis. The plain­tiffs-respondents (3) instituted the suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit house/room after terminating the tenancy by a notice also claimed arrear rents and compensation. Exhibit-I was the notice served on the defendant terminating the tenancy. Notice, terminating the tenancy, was obligatory for filing the ejectment suit. The legality and validity of the notice was challenged by the defendant although amongst other grounds. 3. The only substantial question of law for consideration in this Second Appeal is: - Whether the notice terminating tenancy issued by one of the plaintiffs was sufficient for the purpose under the law? 4. Learned counsel Mr.C.C.Deka on behalf of the defendant subm­itted that al the three plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the suit house/room and the defendant a tenant under them, so the notice by one of them alone terminating the tenancy, was not a valid notice on the other hand, learned counsel Mr.D.N.Choudhury on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the defendant took the room and premises by an oral agreement with plaintiff No. 1 Shri Arabinda Das who used to manage the properties of the family and so, the notice by him alone was sufficient to terminate the tenancy for filing ejectment suit. Learned counsel of both sides have referred some case laws/decisions on this point in support of their submissions. Perused the decisions (Arun Chandra Duarah vs. Pancho Modok AIR 1957 70; Jamir Ahmed vs. Madliawanand AIR 1979 All 104 ; Nanalal GirdbariJal vs. Gulanmabi Jamalbhai Motorola AIR 1973 Guj Full Bench 131; and Krishna Hujare vs. Laxmibai Narsingrao Desai AfiR 1938 Bom 316). The principles and decisions on the point in the former three cases are found helpful for this case. 5. Mr. D.N.Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents has refe­rred AIR 1938 Bom 316 and the Pal Singh vs. Sander Singh ( 1989 (1) SCC 444 ). The principles and decisions on the point in the former three cases are found helpful for this case. 5. Mr. D.N.Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents has refe­rred AIR 1938 Bom 316 and the Pal Singh vs. Sander Singh ( 1989 (1) SCC 444 ). These two cases are ia respect of the tenancy in the purview of Rent Control Act of Urban Areas. It was held by the Supreme Court in the later case under section 14 (1) (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that a landlord entitled to maintain a eviction petition on his tenant alone without requiring to serve notice under section 106 of the T.P.Act; and that incase of landlords more than one, failure to implead other co-owners in an eviction petition, one of the co-owners receiving rent and filing the eviction petition, other co-owners not objecting, in such circumstances suit for eviction is maintainable. Perused both these decisions. These are found not helpful as they relate to Rent Control Act applicable to the Urban Areas (Cities/ towls). But the present suit property does not come within the purview of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, the property/premises being outside the Urban Area, these principles are net applicable. The submissions of Mr.Choudhury have no force. 6. Paragraph No. l of the plaint discloses that all the three plaintiffs are owners of the suit room/premises and that plaintiff No. l manages all the properties of the family, and that the defendant took the room by oral agreement with plaintiff No. 1 at monthly rental basis. Whereas, in the notice (Exhibit No. l) it was stated that the defendant took the suit house belonging to Shri Arabinda Das (Plaintiff No. 1) for business at monthly basis. Shri Arabinda Das was shown to be the sole owner in the notice. Statements in the notice and the plaint do not tally. The notice did not disclose that all the three plaintiffs are the owners and that the plaintiff No.l Shd Arabinda Das used to manage the properties of the family and in that capacityhe let out the house to the defendant and on their behalf he issued the notice terminating tenancy. Notice by all the three owners or by any one of them for self and on behalf of the co-owners with authority was obligatory. Notice by all the three owners or by any one of them for self and on behalf of the co-owners with authority was obligatory. The notice Exhibit No.l given by Shri Arabinda Das alone was not a valid notice to terminate tenancy asking a tenant to quit. 7. The law relating to notice for terminating lease/ tenancy is made under the provision of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is obligatory that a notice to terminate a tenancy be given by all the lessors. Where a notice is given by any of the lessors without explicitly purporting to have done so for self and on behalf of all the lessors with authority, it would not validly terminate the tenancy. Where two more co-owners of a property either grant a lease acting together or any one of them grants a lease on behalf of himself and other co-owners, notice of termination must be given by or on behalf of all co-owners. Again where a lease is granted by a landlord being sole owner of the lease property, and subsequently the property comes to be owned by two or more during the subsistence of that lease, then no single co-owner can terminate the tenancy by a notice to quit, but it must be given by or on behalf of all co-owners. It is not necessary that all the co-owners should sign the notice given by them, it will be sufficient if it is given by some one acting as their agent under an authority. Such agent maybe one of tie co-owners himself or a third person having authority which exists at the time when notice is given. When such agents acts under special authority, he must give notice in the name of the principal or expressly as agent on behalf of the principal; but if he acts under authority incidental to the general agency to manage the leased property, he can give it in his own name. 8. The substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 9. 8. The substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 9. The impugned judgments and decrees in Title Appeal No. 64/1984 and in Title Suit No. 7/1984 passed by the Assistant District Judge No.l and Munsiff No. 2, Gauhati respectively and the findings/decisions of the issues thereunder are hereby set aside except the findings of issue No. 3 and the decree on that score The finding on issues No. 3 by both the Courts below is not interfered, but affirmed with the modification that the plaintiffs shall be entitled to get all arrear rents at the rate of Rs. 175/ (Rupees one hundred seventy five only) per month from Aswain, 1389 B. S. to Vaishakh. 1396 B.S.. Total arrear being Rs. 14,000.00 (Rupees fourteen thousand only). 10. " This Second Appeal is partly allowed. The suit T.S.No.7 of 1984 of the Court of Munsiff No.2, Gauhati is decreed for arrear rent as ind­icated above and dismissed in respect of ejectment prayer due to invalid notice. The parties shall share their own costs of all the courts. Sead down the records immediately.