DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-defendant filed this second appeal against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge. City Civil court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court) dated 15-11-2001 in dismissing the appeal filed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 1338 of 1994 dated 28-11-1997 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court hyderabad in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and deliver vacant possession and to pay the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 450. 00 and also to pay the mesne profits from 1-10-1993. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of second Appeal are as follows: the defendant is a tenant in the suit premises bearing No. 11-6-305 situated at masjid-e-Khursheed Jah, Nampally, hyderabad on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. 00 the suit premises belong to the first plaintiff, which is a Trust property. The defendant failed to pay the rent and he is a habitual and chronic wilful defaulter in payment of rents. Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The defendant also changed the nature of the 1 property and carried out certain repairs and alterations without the knowledge of the landlord. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit as framed is not maintainable. The suit property was in occupation of mrs. Saoluy Bee wife of Qamaruddin about 50 or 60 years ago and the rents were enhanced from time to time and she died in. 1 the year 1956 and the defendant is one of the legal heirs of late Saoluy Bee. The defendant denied the allegations that he committed default in payment of rents. The defendant further contended that when the plaintiff interfered with his possession, he filed o. S. No. 3507 of 1993 and obtained interim injunction. The quit notice is not in accordance with law and the alleged termination of tenancy is illegal and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, since all the legal heirs are not impleaded in the suit, the suit is not maintainable. The quit notice is not in accordance with law and the alleged termination of tenancy is illegal and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, since all the legal heirs are not impleaded in the suit, the suit is not maintainable. ( 3 ) ON the above said pleadings the trial court framed and settled the following issues: (1) Whether the tenancy of the defendant is validly determined? (2) Whether the suit as instituted is maintainable and if the plaintiffs are competent to institute the same? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the mesne profits as sought? (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? (5) To what relief? ( 4 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-12 were marked. The defendant examined himself as d. W. I and Ex. B-1 to B-5 were marked on his behalf. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the suit as framed was maintainable. The defendant committed wilful default in payment of rents and the quit notice issued against the defendant was valid and legal and consequently the suit was decreed with costs. Aggrieved against the decree and judgment, the appellant-defendant filed a. S. No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the XII additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad and the learned Judge after hearing dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED against the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court, the appellant-defendant filed the second appeal contending that both the Courts committed error in coming to the conclusion that the quit notice was legal and that the plaintiffs were entitled to file the suit against one of the legal heirs of the original tenant. Considering the contentions of both the parties, the following substantial questions of law would arise in the second appeal. (1) Whether the termination of tenancy of only one of the legal heirs of the original tenant is sufficient to terminate the tenancy of other legal heirs as well? (2) Whether the quit notice under ex. A-1 is in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property act and valid in law? (1) Whether the termination of tenancy of only one of the legal heirs of the original tenant is sufficient to terminate the tenancy of other legal heirs as well? (2) Whether the quit notice under ex. A-1 is in accordance with the provisions of Transfer of Property act and valid in law? (3) Whether the suit as framed by the plaintiff without impleading the other legal heirs of late Saoluy Bee is maintainable? ( 6 ) POINTS 1 to 3: The evidence on record would disclose that the suit property is a registered wakf property and it has been approved by the second plaintiff. The defendant is a tenant in respect of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. 00. It is in the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of monthly rents right from the inception of the tenancy and he failed to pay the rents from September 1992 to June 1993 amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 The plaintiff caused registered legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant as per the provisions of Transfer of Property act (for short the Act ). It is contended by the defendant that the suit property was in occupation of Mrs. Saoluy Bee since 50 or 60 years ago and she died leaving behind two sons namely Mahaboob and Sharfuddin. Mahaboob also died in the year 1987 leaving behind the defendant and his brother as legal heirs. Since then the defendant and his brother were residing in the suit property. Mrs. Saoluy Bee died leaving behind two daughters namely Noorjahan and shahjahan. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the lower appellate Court did not formulate the points for determination as provided under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 C. P. C. The learned Advocate for the appellant relied on the decisions in Iruvanti Gopinatha rao (died per L. Rs. v. Vadlapudi Narayana1 and midakanti Nagabhushana Reddy v. Midakanti yellaiah2. v. Vadlapudi Narayana1 and midakanti Nagabhushana Reddy v. Midakanti yellaiah2. ( 8 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the respondents contended that the Division bench of this Court in Gorrella Durga Vara prasada Rao v. Indukuri Ram Raju3 considered this point and held that if the appellate court in its judgment dealing with all grounds taken in the Memorandum of appeal and giving decision on those grounds with reasons amounts to sufficient compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 C. P. C. even if specific points for determination were not framed. ( 9 ) IN the light of the decision of the division Bench of this Court, if the appellate court dealt with all the grounds taken in the memorandum of Appeal and giving decision on those grounds with reasons amounts to sufficient compliance with order 41 Rule 31 CPC. I have gone through the judgment of the lower appellate Court in a. S. No. 6 of 1998. The lower appellate Court framed the point for consideration as follows;"whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is liable to be set aside as contended by the defendant? in the light of the observation made in the decisions reported supra (1 and 2), the division Bench observed that if the lower appellate Court had considered all the grounds taken in the Memorandum of appeal by giving reasons, it would amount to sufficient compliance. The lower appellate court discussed in detail all the grounds and gave specific findings. Therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot be set aside on this ground alone in view of the decision reported supra (3) since the lower appellate Court discussed all the grounds raised by the appellant in detail and gave specific findings. ( 10 ) THE next ground that is urged by the advocate for the appellant is that the quit notice issued by the plaintiffs is not valid since he is only one of the legal heirs of the deceased original tenant and the suit itself is not maintainable. The evidence on record would disclose that the defendant was acting on behalf of all the legal heirs of the deceased original tenant and he was paying the rents to the plaintiff. The rent receipts issued by the plaintiffs would prove that the rents were tendered by the defendant himself. The evidence on record would disclose that the defendant was acting on behalf of all the legal heirs of the deceased original tenant and he was paying the rents to the plaintiff. The rent receipts issued by the plaintiffs would prove that the rents were tendered by the defendant himself. The evidence on record would disclose that the defendant was acting on behalf of all the legal heirs and he was tendering the rents every month. In such a situation notice under Section 106 of the Act issued to one of the legal heirs acting on behalf of the other legal heirs of the deceased original tenant is valid in law as decided in h. C. Pandey v. G. C. Paul4 wherein it was held that notice under Section 106 of the Act issued to one of the legal heirs acting on behalf of the other legal heirs is valid notice as it is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. In view of the above decision when the evidence discloses that the defendant was acting on behalf of the other legal heirs and that he was tendering the rents on their behalf to the plaintiff, the notice issued under Section 106 of the Act terminating the tenancy of the defendant is valid in law and the suit as framed is maintainable in view of the fact that after the death of the original tenant the respondent alone was paying the rents and he did not create a new tenancy. The same view was followed in S. A. Wali Quadri v. Sadar anjuman-e-Islamia5. For the above said reasons, I come to the conclusion that the courts below have not committed any error and there are no merits in the appeal and that the quit notice issued by the plaintiffs to one of the legal heirs terminating the tenancy is valid in law and therefore both the Courts have rightly held that the plaintiffs are entitled to terminate the tenancy and the defendant is liable to be evicted. Thus the points are answered against the appellant and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Thus the points are answered against the appellant and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the XH Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad and the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 1338 of 1994 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad.