JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:--- The above appeals arose from a common judgment and decree passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1985 and Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1985 on 29th November 1985. Since common question of law arises in both the appeals between the same parties, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein is the landlady and appellant is a tenant in respect of two rooms situated in a house comprising of four rooms belonging to the respondent. The appellant was served with notice dated 7th October 1982 by the respondent terminating his tenancy in respect of both the rooms and was asked to deliver vacant possession thereof alongwith payment of arrears of rent. The appellant having failed to comply with the said notice, the respondent filed two suits, namely Civil Suit No. 10 of 1983 in respect of Room No. 2 and Civil Suit No. 11 of 1983 in respect of Room No. 3 for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises as well as for arrears of rent. The suit was sought to be resisted by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had incurred certain expenditure on account of repairs to the premises and that there was an agreement between the parties to allow the appellant to continue to reside in the premises. It was also contended by the appellant that the tenancy of the appellant was not properly terminated. The trial Court after hearing both the parties decreed both the suits by its judgment and decree dated 3rd May 1985. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeals against the decree of eviction in both the suits and the same were dismissed by the impugned orders and decrees. 3. The only point for consideration which is sought to be raised in the present second appeal is whether there was valid termination of tenancy of the appellant by the respondent prior to the institution of the suit for eviction of the appellant. 3. The only point for consideration which is sought to be raised in the present second appeal is whether there was valid termination of tenancy of the appellant by the respondent prior to the institution of the suit for eviction of the appellant. The contention of Shri Kankaria, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant is that though initially there were two different leases created in favour of the appellant in respect of each of the rooms, subsequently by an agreement executed in the year 1967 between the parties one single tenancy was created in respect of both the rooms and therefore, there was no proper and valid notice terminating the joint tenancy in respect of both the rooms. According to the learned Advocate notices which were served on the appellant in October 1982 do not lawfully terminate the joint tenancy of the appellant in respect of both the rooms, since the notices were sent on the presumption that there were two independent leases in respect of each of the two rooms. Shri Kale, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submitted that the fact that there are two distinct and separate leases have been established by evidence on record and both the courts below after analysing the entire evidence have come to the conclusion that there were two distinct and separate leases in respect of each of the two rooms and it is not open for the appellant to contend that the respondent could not have served notices on the assumption that there were two independent leases in respect of each of the two rooms. 4. The material on record, particulary the judgment passed by the trial Court discloses that the appellant herein had nowhere pleaded in his written statement that the leases in respect of both the rooms were sought to be merged in a single tenancy in the year 1987 (sic 1967). It was only during the course of evidence that a copy of the agreement alleged to have been executed in the year 1967 between the parties was sought to be produced. A copy of such joint agreement is exhibited in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1983 as Exhibit 65, whereas a copy thereof is found exhibited in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1983 at Exhibit 51. A copy of such joint agreement is exhibited in Civil Suit No. 10 of 1983 as Exhibit 65, whereas a copy thereof is found exhibited in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1983 at Exhibit 51. The finding in respect of this document given by the trial Court is that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the said copies were the copies of the original agreement executed on a stamp paper between the parties. Finding of the trial Court further states that the appellant had failed to establish that the thumb impression found on the agreement was that of the husband of the respondent. The trial Court also disbelieved the defence witness Thakurbhai, who was examined by the appellant as one of the witness to the said agreement. In fact the trial Court has analysed the deposition of the said witness in detail before arriving at a finding that the witness cannot be believed. The Court also disbelieved that the husband of the respondent used to sign in Marathi, whereas the signature found on the document was in English. Apparently, the trial Court was referring to Devnagari and Roman scripts respectively when it was said that the husband of the respondent used to sign in Marathi (i.e. Devnagari) whereas the signature found in the document was in English (i.e. Roman). 5. The lower Appellate Court also upon analysis of the evidence on record has held that there were two distinct and separate tenancies and appellant has not been able to establish that the leases in respect of both the rooms were combined by an alleged agreement in the year 1967. Added to this, the records disclose that in March 1982, the appellant through his lawyer had served a notice upon the respondent stating that he is the tenant in respect of two rooms, viz. Room Nos. 2 and 3, since 1959 and the rent of each of the rooms was successively increased and lastly from January to October 1981 the rent was fixed at Rs. 35/- per each room. In other words, the consistent stand of the appellant even prior to the filing of the suit was that the appellant had independent leases in respect of each of the two rooms. 35/- per each room. In other words, the consistent stand of the appellant even prior to the filing of the suit was that the appellant had independent leases in respect of each of the two rooms. It was only during the trial of the suit that for the first time, the appellant sought to raise the plea of merger of both the leases into one single lease by one lease deed alleged to have been executed in the year 1967. However, the appellant failed to establish the same and the concurrent findings arrived by both the courts below on the analysis of the entire evidence on record disclose that there were two distinct and separate leases in respect of each of the two rooms and therefore, they were required to be terminated independently of each other and in fact the respondent had terminated the same by issuing two separate notices. 6. Considering the facts of this case and the evidence on record, the existence of two distinct and separate leases in respect of each of the two rooms have been clearly established and further that the respondent having terminated the same with two separate notices issued in case of each of those two leases, I find no substance in the contention sought to be raised by the appellant that there was infirmity or lapse on the part of the respondent in terminating the leases in respect of both the rooms let out to the appellant. Therefore, the substantial question of law urged in this appeal is to be answered in the affirmative and hence the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. The appellant to pay costs of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in each of the appeals to the respondent. Appeals dismissed.