JUDGMENT

Khundkar, J. - There is only one question involved in this suit, and it relates to the sufficiency of what is called a notice to quit which is really a notice to terminate a tenancy. The Plaintiff seeks to eject the Defendant from certain rooms, being room No. 4 on the ground floor, room No. 33 on the first floor, room No. 49 on the second floor and three kitchens on the roof, in premises No. 46, Cross Street in the town of Calcutta, and he claims to recover from the Defendant as mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 189-8 per month.

2. It would appear that originally the Defendant was a lessee of the rooms in question under the Kashimbazar Raj Wards' Estate to which the house No. 46, Cross Street, appertains. The lease expired but the Defendant held over, and was thereafter regarded as a monthly tenant.

3. On the 4th June, 1940, the Defendant received a notice from the Kasimbazar Raj Estate which purported to be a notice terminating his monthly tenancy from the 1st Sravan, 1347 B.S. This date corresponds to the 16th July, 1940. It so happens that some years ago, on the 14th of April, 1937, to be precise, the Plaintiff entered upon occupation of room No. 6 on the ground floor of this house as a month to month sub-tenant of the Defendant. He continued as such until 17th July, 1940, that is the day after that upon which the Plaintiff's tenancy under the Kasimbazar Raj Estate is alleged to have been terminated by the notice to quit.

4. On the 17th July, 1940, the Plaintiff took a lease for five years of all the rooms in question under the Kasimbazar Raj. Actually the lease was executed on the 25th August, 1941, but it was expressed to commence as from the 17th July, 1940, and the document was registered on the 27th August, 1941.

5. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's tenancy having been terminated by the Kasimbazar Raj as from the 16th July, 1940, the Defendant is in the position of a trespasser, and hence this suit for ejectment and mesne profits. The defence is that the Defendant is still a month to month tenant under the Kasimbazar Raj, as the so-called notice terminating his tenancy was bad and ineffective in law.

6. It is desirable that the whole of the notice which is in the form of a letter addressed to the Defendant and signed by the Manager of the Kasimbazar Raj Wards Estate should be set out:

You are hereby informed that the period of tenancy granted to you as monthly tenant for a term of 5 years commencing from the Bysak 1342 B.S. expired in Chaitra 1346 B.S. and as you are still holding over as a monthly tenant you are hereby requested to make a fresh engagement on new terms by the 31st Ashar 1347 B.S. at the latest, failing which the tenancy will be determined from the 1st Sravan, 1347 B.S.

You are in arrear for Rs. 867-8-0 besides the deeretal claim of Rs. 3,204 principal and you must have to clear off all arrears up to date immediately.

I may grant you fresh lease for a further period of (?) years subject to Commissioner's sanction, if you agree to pay Selami equivalent to six months' rent minimum and rent fixed in round number according to position of the room. The Selami must be deposited by the end of Ashar, 1317 B.S. failing which you will have to vacate.

In case of your agreeing to pay Selami by the date fixed you will have to execute and register an agreement.

7. For the purposes of the argument addressed to me, it is only the first paragraph of this letter that is of importance. This paragraph alleges that the Defendant is a monthly tenant; it requests him to enter into a fresh engagement with the Raj Estate by the 31st Ashar, 1347 B.S. and it states that failing that, the tenancy will be determined from the 1st Sravan, 1347 B.S.

8. Mr. Chatterjee who appears on behalf of the Defendant has contended that this is a bad notice for two reasons. Firstly, it is not a plain and unambiguous statement of an intention to terminate the tenancy but is no more than an invitation to take a fresh settlement, as it is call