C. L. Pangarkar, J. - This is an appeal by the defendant. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

3. Plaintiff is the owner of building situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road Ekori at Chandrapur. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and was using the said premises as godown. The rent was Rs. 55/- per month. The tenancy was monthly commencing from 14th day of each English Calender month. The defendant was irregular in payment of rent. The plaintiff, therefore applied to the Rent Controller for grant of permission to determine the tenancy of the defendant. The Rent Controller granted the permission on 25.04.1981. On 22.05.1981 the plaintiff through his counsel issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant by 13.06.1981. Upon service of this notice the defendant sent a reply and informed the plaintiff to wait till decision of the appeal preferred against the order of the Rent Controller. Appeal came to be decided by the Resident Deputy Collector on 12.10.1981, hence on 23.12.1981 the plaintiff as a Courtesy gave another notice to the defendant calling upon the 3 defendant to vacate the premises by 14.01.1982. He was also called upon to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day. The defendant did not vacate the premises. Hence the plaintiff instituted the suit.

4. The defendant filed Written Statement and admitted that he was a tenant of the plaintiff. He also admitted the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The defendant however disputed the validity of the notice issued by the plaintiff. It is contended that since the defendant issued a second notice he has infact waived first notice and he therefore could not base the suit on the first notice. It was also contended that the permission granted by the Rent Controller was therefore exhausted and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned Judge of the trial Court framed issues. He found that the tenancy of the defendant was monthly. The tenancy of the defendant was validly determined. The first notice was not waived and holding so he decreed the suit. The defendant preferred an appeal before the District Judge. District Judge confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court. He also found that the first notice issued by the plaintiff was not waived at all. Being aggrieved by that confirmation of decree by the first appellate Court the defendant/tenant has preferred this second appeal.

6. Second appeal has been admitted by Manoharan J. on the following substantial question of law :

"The substantial question of law that has to be decided in this appeal is, whether there is waiver of the first notice by the issue of the second notice dated 23.12.1981 (Ex. 88).

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent i.e. the defendant and the plaintiff respectively. Following few are the undisputed facts :

Plaintiff/landlord applied to the Rent Controller to grant permission to determine the tenancy. The Rent Controller granted permission by order dated 25.04.1981. The tenancy is monthly and commences on 14th day of each English Calender month. Plaintiff after the permission of the Rent Controller issued first notice dated 22.05.1981 (Ex. 79). By this notice plaintiff/landlord called upon the defendant/tenant to vacate the premises on 13.06.1981. The defendant received notice on 29.05.1981 vide (Ex. 81). Obviously 15 days clear notice ending with the month of tenancy was served. 5 Defendant/tenant on 10.06.1981 sent a reply to the notice vide (Ex. 83) informing the plaintiff that it would not be proper for him to take action since the defendant has preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller. After this reply the plaintiff again sent a second notice (Ex. 88) to defendant/tenant calling upon him to vacate the premises by 14.01.1982. The suit is based on the first notice (Ex. 79).

7. With these admitted facts the arguments are to be apprec