A notice to quit is valid if it indicates an intention to terminate the tenancy on the expiry of a certain period, even if it does not expressly state that the tenancy is being terminated.

JUDGMENT :- This second appeal has been filed by defendants 2 and 3 who are sub-tenants and is directed against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 175/- as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation for the period from 1-4-1967 to 15-9-1968.

2. Plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of two shops against the appellants and respondent No. 3 on the allegations that respondent No. 3 Laukush was the tenant-in-chief of the two shops in dispute on a rent of Rs. 10/- per month and that he had sublet the shops in question to the appellants. It was alleged that defendant No. 3 was defaulter in payment of rent and he had illegally sublet the premises and, as such, was liable to ejectment. Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the shops in suit from Indra Narain Khanna, the previous landlord. The plaintiffs had served a notice on respondent No. 3 alone terminating his tenancy but he failed to vacate the shops.

3. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who filed separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that he was never tenant of the shops in dispute and had nothing to do with, them. He also challenged the validity of the notice served upon him.

4. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 (appellants) pleaded, inter alia, that defendant No. 1 was not the tenant of the shops in dispute, that defendant No. 2 was the tenant of the western portion of the shop for the last twelve years on a rent of Rs. 10/- per month and defendant No. 3 was the tenant of the eastern portion of the shop in dispute on a rent of Rs. 7/- per month and that sometimes rent was also sent through defendant No. 1 to Indra Narain Khanna as defendant No. 1 was friendly with him.

5. Defendant No. 1 filed a compromise admitting the plaintiff's claim.

6. The trial Court held that defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the shops in dispute, that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were subtenants of defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 1 had committed default in payment of the rent. It accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment against all the defendants and for recovery of Rs. 175/- as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation against defendant No. 1.

7. On appeal by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 the appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the judgement and decree.

8. Two points have been urged in support of this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants, firstly, he contended that the concurrent findings of the two courts below that defendant No. 1, and not defendants 2 and 3, was the tenant of the shops in question was erroneous and the courts below did not take into consideration the entire evidence filed by the appellants, Secondly, he contended that the notice was invalid as it did not specially terminate the tenancy.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion there is no force in the above contentions. Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have relied on the rent note Ext. 3 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of Indra Narain Khanna, the landlord. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs have purchased the two shops in dispute from Indra Narain Khanna by means of sale deed Ext. 2 dated 10-7-1968. The rent note Ext. 3 clearly shows that defendant No. 1 had taken on lease the two shops on rent of Rs. 10/- per month. In the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs there is also a clear recital to the effect that defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the two shops in dispute. The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs-respondents was also to the same effect. On the other hand, there is no evidence on the record to show that the appellants were the tenants of Indra Narain Khanna. Defendant No. 2 alone has examined herself while defendant No. 3 did not enter the witness-box. Defendant No. 2 stated in cross-examination that the shop was given to defendant No. 3 in her