This Second Appeal by the defendant which is against a concurring judgment, has to be allowed on a short point. The suit instituted by the respondent was in ejectment. His claim was that the appellant was a tenant of the suit premises including the building and, if the Court believed the defendant had put up the building, the plaintiff prayed for possession of the vacant site after removing the superstructure. By the findings of both the Courts below it is now settled that the superstructure was put up by the defendant. It is also common ground that notice under section 11 of the City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, as amended, was never given by the respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of possession subject to the plaintiff depositing a sum of Rs. 270. With this decree the lower appellate Court substantially agreed. On the question of jurisdiction based on section 11, the lower appellate Court was of the view that the defendant had waived his rights thereunder.

The only point argued before this Court is the one based on section 11. It is contended that the Courts below were wrong in spelling out waiver from circumstances which did not justify the infer