DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the defts. against the judgment and decree of the disk Judge of Jaipur, dated 22-10-1948, upholding the decree of the Munsif west, Jaipur city, dated 19-7-48, for their ejectment from the pltfs. shop and for payment of Rs. 144 as rent to the reap.

( 2 ) ON 27-7-1950 the applts. advocate had raised two grounds in appeal. His first contention was that there was a subsequent agreement for enhanced rent between the parties and therefore, the previous agreement on which the pltf had based his suit was not enforcible. This objection is untenable, because both the cts. have recorded a concurrent finding that the subsequent agreement alleged by the applts. was not proved. This is a finding of fact and a second appeal thereon does not lie.

( 3 ) THE next argument pressed by the applts. counsel was that the notice given by the resp. was invalid since it did not comply with the requirements of Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, It was argued that the notice was not for 15 days and did not terminate with the month of the tenancy. From the perusal of the notice ex. 3 dated 19-7-1946 it certainly appears that it was given for one month and