LODHA, J.—These are two connected appeals arising out of two suits for ejectment instituted by the land-lord Smt. Sahjadi Bibi against Dr. Harumal and Sugnomal (deceased) respectively. It appears that Sugnomal died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by his heirs, Sita Devi and others. The facts and the questions of law involved in both the appeals are identical and, therefore, it would be convenient to decide them by a common judgment.

2. Dr. Harumal and the deceased Sugnomal were admitted as tenants by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on 28-1-48 in the second and third storeys respectively of the house in question. The rent settled with Dr. Harumal was Rs. 3/- per month and that with Sugnomal Rs. 6/8/- per month. The plaintiff Sahjadi Bibi purchased this property from the Competent Officer, Ajmer, on 26-9-53, and, thereafter on 18-11-53 she gave notices to both the tenants to vacate the property as the same was required by her for personal use and occupation. By these notices, the tenancy was terminated from the midnight of 25th December, 1953. Since the tenants failed to quit, the respondent filed the suits against both of them for ejectment and arrears of rent in the court of the Munsif, Ajmer. The tenants resisted the plaintiffs suit inter alia on the ground that notice of termination of tenancy was not in order as it did not expire with the end of the month of the tenancy. This objection found favour with the Munsif Ajmer, and accordingly the suits for ejectment were dismissed. The plaintiff filed appeals in the court of District Judge, Ajmer, in both the cases. The appeals were transferred in the court of Civil Judge, Ajmer, who held that the notices for ejectment were valid. Consequently the appeals were allowed and the suits for ejectment were decreed. It may be relevant here to state that all the issues in both the cases, except .issue No. 5, refer to the question of property having been damaged by the tenants and issue No. 6 regarding the validity of the notices, were decided in favour of the plaintiff by the trial court and the suit for ejectment was dismissed only on the ground of bad notice. In the first appellate court only the question of validity of notice was argued and so also before me. The only point, therefore, I am called upon to decide is whether the notice given by the plaintiff land-lord in each of the two cases terminating the tenancy from the midnight of 25th December, 1953, is valid ?

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tenancy in each case commenced from 28th January 1948 and, therefore, the notice should have expired with the end of the month of the tenancy that is on 28th. The suits were instituted on 28th December, 1953. It is urged that the plaintiffs case in the plaint was that the defendant was admitted as a tenant from 28-1-48 and consequently the tenancy should have been terminated with the end of the month of the tenancy. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the lower appellate court and has urged that the tenancy was at will and it was not necessary to serve a notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy. In the alternative it is argued that the tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendants was created only when the plaintiff purchased the property from the Competent Officer on 26-9-53 and looked at from that point of view, the notice is valid.

4. I may observe here that the learned counsel for the respondent also raised a preliminary objection that no second appeal lay in these cases, but subsequently gave it up when the learned counsel for the appellant drew his attention to the following decisions of this Court—(1) Anand Singh versus Ghandmal (1); (2) Bal Chand versus Smt. Dhan Kanwar (2); (3) Shivkumar versus Ballabhdass (3); and (4) Gordhanlal versus Nathulal (4).

5. The only point, therefore, which I am called upon to decide is whether the notice of termination of tenancy, which is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document