A tenant cannot challenge the validity of subsequent ejectment notices if they have accepted the withdrawal of previous notices on the ground of invalidity.

( 1 ) THESE two second appeals are preferred by two separate tenants against a common appellate judgment and decree for ejectment from the disputed premises, briefly in the following circumstances : two separate suits were filed by the respondent as owner against her tenants H. N. Malhotra and H. P. Goenka for their ejectment from premises No. 1, Lower Rowdon Street, a two-storied building. Malhotra occupying ground floor and Goenka occupying the first floor. The premises had out-houses and garages etc. which were also occupied by both the tenants separately. Shortly put, the respondent's case is that she purchased the premises on October 15. 1960 and the appellants who were in occupation of the ground floor and first floor respectively continued as monthly tenants since her purchase. The ground of ejectment is reasonable requirement for the respondent's own use and occupation as she lives in the third floor of a rented premises which is too insufficient and inadequate for accommodating her ailing husband and other members of her family and servants as also office of several companies owned by her and some of the staffs working in the office. In spite of service of notice of ejectment and for institution of suit the defendants failed to vacate.

( 2 ) BOTH the appellants contested the suit and the written statements they put in consist of general denial of material allegations. In particular, they denied the reasonable requirement of the respondent for her own use and occupation as also the validity and sufficiency of the notices.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Court found as a fact on evidence that the respondent required the premises reasonably for her own use and occupation but at the same time dismissed the suit on the view that the impugned notices were invalid as mere service of subsequent ejectment notices could not constitute waiver of earlier notices. On appeal by the respondent the appellate Court below concurred with the finding of the trial Court on the question of reasonable requirement but in disagreement with the trial Court on the question of validity of notices it also held that the impugned notices were valid and accordingly decreed both the suits. That is how, in short, both the appellants felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeals.

( 4 ) NOW, on the question of sufficiency of notices both the courts below found that the impugned notices did not suffer from any of the infirmities of insufficiency. On the other question as to validity of these notices the admitted facts are, as found by the courts below, that two previous suits brought by the respondent in 1961 against the appellants for ejectment were withdrawn by the respondent on the ground that the notices served for ejectment (Exts. B-2 and C-2) upon these two appellants were not valid with notices to and in presence of the appellants who did not raise any objection. It is also not disputed that previous suits were contested by both the appellants and in their written statements they challenged the validity or sufficiency of these ejectment notices. In the present suits also the appellants have raised the same objection and characterised the fresh notices as invalid and insufficient on an assertion that their tenancies are still continuing. In spite of these admitted facts it is difficult to see how the question whether the first notices were waived by issuing fresh notices of ejectment could at all be considered relevant in this case. Clearly, the first suits on the basis of the first notices were withdrawn on the ground of defective notices to which the appellants did not raise any objection. In the present appeals, also, in their written statements they asserted that their tenancies were continuing; obviously, in spite of service of the first notices or of the subsequent notices the appellants are still maintaining that their tenancies are continuing. It is, therefore, clear, by their conduct, the appellants actually accepted the pos