( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the decision of our learned brother Renupada Mukherjee, J. allowing an appeal directed against an appellate decree. The respondents before us brought a suit for ejectment of the present appellants on the allegation that the defendant Kalipada Mullik was a tenant of a tank described in the schedule, his right being thika non-permanent" and the tenancy being for rearing and catching fishes. It was averred that the tenancy was terminated by a proper notice to quit, but the appellants had not given up possession. There were several defences raised; but the only defence with which we are at present concerned is that the notice served was not valid or sufficient in law. The trial Court held that the tenancy was one from year to year and could be terminated by six months' notice and so the notice was insufficient. It held, in the alternative, that even if the tenancy was regarded to be a monthly tenancy requiring fifteen days' notice, there was no valid notice as the plaintiffs have failed to show on what date the tenancy started. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the tenancy was from month to month and that fifteen days' n