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 t