JUDGMENT :- The defendant in O.S. No. 38 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif of Dindigul is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of possession and for damages from 1-8-1975. There is no dispute that the defendant was a tenant of the suit property, There is no document of lease exhibited in the case. Admittedly, the tenancy was not either for agricultural or for manufacturing purposes. Normally, in such a case, the tenancy will have to be determined by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. In the instant case, what happened is, the defendant on 10-7-1975, in the account books of the plaintiff, in unequivocal terms, agreed to vacate the suit property by 1-8-1975. He did not adhere to this promise but wanted a further extension of fifteen days' time under Ex.A-2 dated 2-8-1975. Obviously, this was not acceptable to the plaintiff and the plaintiff issued a notice on 11-8-1975, under the original of Ex.A-3, calling upon the defendant to deliver possession by 17-8-1975. The main question that arose on the contest by the defendant in the litigation w