Shearer, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment, which has been decreed. The defendant put forward two alternative pleas, one plea was that he was the owner of the premises and that the plaintiff was not his landlord. The other was that, if in fact he was a tenant, the notice to quit which had been served on him was not, in law, a valid notice, and did not terminate his tenancy. As these two picas were based of facts which were wholly incompatible with one another, it is not clear to me why the defendant was permitted to put them forward, it was clearly not open to the defendant to assert in one breath that he was not a tenant of the plaintiff, and in another, to assert that he was a tenant and his tenancy had not been properly determined. The Courts below have both negatived the first of the two pleas which were taken, and there is clearly no substance in the contention now put forward by Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath that the plaintiff, not being the nearest reversioner of Chandrika, was not the owner of the premises occupied by him. The conveyance executed by Mt. Sona Kuar to the plaintiff could only be challenged by the nearest reversioner, who is an uncle of