1. Alteration of the month of a tenancy must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. 2. A bona fide requirement of the landlord is prima facie reasonable unless it is shown to be contrary to any law or rule having the force of law.

( 1 ) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was one for the ejectment of the defendant appellant from a portion of the ground floor of premises No. P21 Mission Row Extension, now renumbered as No. 7 Ganesh Chandra Avenue. The tenancy of the defendant consists of a hall and a bathroom with a privy on the ground floor of the aforesaid premises which at its inception bore a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- but which was subsequently increased to Rs. 284/10as.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case is that the defendant was a monthly tenant whose tenancy ran according to English Calendar month and that the plaintiff had determined the tenancy by service of a notice to quit requiring the defendant to vacate the premises on the expiry of the month of July, 1952, but as the defendant had failed to vacate according to the terms of the notice the plaintiff instituted the present suit. The plaintiff's case further is that as he reasonably requires the premises for his own use for establishing a printing press, the defendant is not entitled to the protection of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950. The defendant contested the suit 'inter alia' on the ground that the tenancy had not been validly determined, because the tenancy did not run according to English Calendar month, but from the 25th of one month to the 24th of the following month and also on the ground that the plaintiff did not reasonably require the premises for his own use and occupation. The other points raised by the defendant are not material for the purpose of this appeal and they have not been pressed before us.

( 3 ) BOTH the Courts below have overruled the defence and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the concurrent decrees the defendant has brought this second appeal.

( 4 ) THE two questions which have been argued before us are (a) that the tenancy has not been validly determined by the notice served by the plaintiff and (b) that the plaintiff has failed to prove reasonable requirement which would disentitle the defendant to claim protection under the Rent Control Act.

( 5 ) ON the first point the real question is: What is the month of the defendant's tenancy? The notice to quit on the basis of which the present suit was instituted is exhibit 21 which requires the defendant to quit on the expiry of the month of July, 1952. If the defendant's tenancy runs according to English Calendar month this notice is good. If, on the other hand, the defendant's tenancy runs from the 25th of one month to the 24th of the following month, as alleged by the defence, the notice is bad because it does not expire with end of a month of the tenancy. According to the plaint, the defendant was let into possession as a tenant in January, 1941, for a period of one year with an option of renewal for another year on the basis of certain letters which passed between the parties. The defendant obtained an extension of the period of the tenancy till January 25, 1944. Just before the expiry of that period the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant (exhibit 19) stating that the period of the tenancy would expire on the 25th January 1944, and asked the defendant to vacate after that date, On the defendant's failure to vacate in compliance With the terms of the aforesaid notice the plaintiff instituted suit No, 931 of 1944 on the Original Side of this Court for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground of expiry of the period of the defendant's tenancy by efflux of time. The suit was contested by the defendant by a written statement in which it was claimed that the defendant continued in possession after January, 1943, as a tenant holding over according to English Calendar month. Thereafter On account of certain amendments in the House Rent Control Order, 1943, which was then in force, the plaintiff applied for permission to the Rent Controller to continue Suit No. 931 of 1944 on the ground that the defendant was a defaulter. The Calcutt