The endorsement of refusal on a registered acknowledgment form is sufficient to prove service of the notice, and the evidence of denial by the defendants was not reliable.

1. THESE two second appeals arise out of two suits for ejectment. Second Appeal No. 1276 of 1955, arises out of Title Suit No. 463 of 1952 of the Second Additional Court of the Munsif at Alipore and the corresponding Title Appeal No. 587 of 1954 of the Court of the Additional District Judge. Alipore (Second Extra Court). The other Second Appeal No. 1433 of 1955 arises out of the analogous Title Suit No. 464 of 1952 and the corresponding Title Appeal No. 588 of 1954.

2. BOTH the above suits, which were heard together, were decreed by the learned Munsif, but, on appeal, Title Suit No. 462 of 1952 was dismissed, the corresponding Title Appeal No. 587 of 1954 being allowed, and against this appellate decision, the plaintiff has preferred the corresponding Second Appeal (Second Appeal No. 1276 of 1955). The decree of the learned Munsif in the other Title Suit No. 464 of 1952 was, however, affirmed by the lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 588 of 1954, and the defendant has preferred the corresponding Second Appeal No. 1433 of 1935 from this appellate decree.

The two suits, as I have said above, were suits for ejectment. They were in respect of two different portions of premises No. 173 Rash Behari Avenue. The first suit related to a portion of the ground floor of the said premises held by the defendant therein, namely, Srimati Usha Rani Bose, as a tenant under the plaintiff, from month to month, according to the English calendar, at a monthly rental of Rs. 28/-. The other Title suit concerns the first floor of the above premises No. 176 Rash Behari Avenue, which was held by the defendant in that suit, Srimati Snehalata Bose, as a tenant under the plaintiff, from month to month, according to the English Calendar, at a rental of Its. 55/- per month.

3. THE two defendants were related to each other in that the defendant in the first suit Srimati Usha Rani Bose is the wife of Sri Santi Kumar Bose, who is the son of the defendant in other suit, namely, Srimati Snehalata Bose. It was the plaintiff's case that the defendants in the two suits made defaults in the payment of rent since May, 1951, and that the plaintiff had served due notices upon them, terminating their respective tenancies with effect from June, 1952, and thereafter, they not having vacated the suit premises, she (the plaintiff) instituted the present suits on August 14, 1952, claiming vacant possession of the same. In the suits, there were also claims for arrears of rents from May, 1951 to June, 1952. The suits were contested by the defendants and the defense, which was more or less, common, was to the effect that the two alleged tenancies, forming the subject-matter of the above two ejectment suits, were really not distinct or separate tenancies but comprised one tenancy and the two defendants in the two suits were really joint tenants in respect of that single tenancy. The defendants also denied the plaintiff's allegation of default in the payment of rent and contended that they were not defaulters either in law or in fact, so as to be disentitled to the protection of the Rent Control legislation. There was a further plea of denial of service of the requisite notice to quit in either case, with the addition, that such notice, even if served, was illegal, insufficient and invalid. All the above defenses were overruled by the learned Munsif, who decreed both the suits in favour of the plaintiff.

4. ON appeal by the defendant (Title Appeal No. 587 of 1954), Title Suit No. 463 of 1952 has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge upon the view that the service of the requisite notice to quit in that case has not been proved. The other findings of the learned Munsif were, however, accepted by the learned Additional District Judge and, with regard to these findings, I have, before me, the concurrent conclusions of the two courts below in favour of the plaintiff. The other appeal (Title Appeal No. 588 of 1954) by the other defendant, arising out of