The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of the tenancy created under the lease deed and the sufficiency of the notice to terminate the tenancy.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing his suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property with arrears of rent. The lease deed on the basis of which the suit was filed was executed by deceased Sankara Panicker the husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 on 7 81925 in favour of the 6th defendant's karanavan, Parameswaran Namboothiri, and was for a term of three years on an annual rent of Rs. 15/-. It is stated in the lease deed that the plaint schedule property belonged in Jenm to Guruvayoor Devaswom and that the Devaswom had granted an 'Anubhavam' right in respect of the property to the 6th defendant's Mana. It is further stated there that the lease being taken for the purpose of enabling the lessee to construct a shipbuilding for carrying on his trade in Ayurvedic drugs. The plaintiff had taken a mortgage in respect of the property on 5 41946 with authority to collect the arrears of rent and future rent and also to recover possession of the property from the lessee. The plaintiff's suit was to recover possession of the property, alleging that defendants had committed default in the payment of rent subsequent to 7th August 1942.

2. The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable, that they have no knowledge of the partition in the illom of the 6th defendant or of the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff, and that the suit was bad for want of proper notice to quit. They also raised other contentions which are not material for the purpose of deciding this appeal.

3. The main question which arose for consideration in the courts below was whether the suit was maintainable on account of want of a proper notice to quit. The trial court held that notice to quit was unnecessary as in Ext.Al there was a contract to the contrary and that even if a notice was necessary, Ext. A3 notice was sufficient to determine the lease. The judge below in appeal by the defendants came to the conclusion that the notice to quit given by the plaintiff was not proper. It took the view that the lease was from year to year and 6 months' notice expiring with the end of the year of the tenancy was essential to determine the tenancy and that Ext. A3 was not a proper notice even if the tenancy was one from month to month. In this view, it dismissed the suit without considering the other points raised in the appeal. It is the correctness of this decree that is challenged in this appeal.

4. The main question therefore that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the view of the court below that 6 months' notice was required to terminate the tenancy is correct and whether Ext. A'3 dated 28-5-1946 issued by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 3 was sufficient to determine the tenancy.

5. To decide the first question the terms of Est. Al the lease deed are relevant. Ext. Al specified a term of three years and then it went on to say:

It was argued for the respondents on the strength of this clause that the tenancy created under Ext. Al was for a period certain and that when that period expired by efflux of time, if the tenant continued in possession of the property and the landlord accepted rent or otherwise assented to his continuing in possession, the tenant was holding over and that the lease thereafter must be presumed to be one from year to year on the ground that an yearly rent was stipulated for in the lease deed. It was also submitted that the conduct of the parties would show that a tenancy from year to year was created after the expiry of the period by the landlord accepting the rent on an yearly basis. On the other hand, it was argued for the appellant that the tenancy evidenced by Ext. Al was a tenancy at will and although it was certain for a period of 3 years, thereafter the tenancy was one at will and therefore the notice given by the appellant although not expiring with the end of the year or of the month of the tenancy, was a proper notice and that, determin