1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether defendant first party are mere tenants at will or whether they are monthly tenants of the house in dispute which fell exclusively to the share of the plaintiff in a private partition. Both the lower courts have held on an examination of the evidence adduced by the parties that the tenancy was a tenancy at will and that no notice to quit was necessary to be given by the plaintiff-landlord.

2. The argument put forward on behalf of of the appellants is that the tenancy created between the parties was a monthly tenancy and in view of the finding of the lower courts that the notice to quit was not a valid notice, the plaintiff was not entitled to be given a decree for ejectment and for damages. We do not accept his argument as correct. In the course of hearing the defendants produced the original lease exhibit A, dated the 5th of September, 1952, granted by Muni Lal Seth. This document States that the defendants may remain in the house "as long as they please." It is true that there is another clause in the document to the effect that the occupation would be on a monthly rental of Rs. 10.00 but as a matter of construction it mus