This is an appeal by the plaintiff who was the owner of certain premises of which she sought vacant possession from the defendant who was a monthly tenant. Before instituting the action she had served the tenant with a notice to quit which appears to be in proper form. There was also evidence that the premises had been constructed in 1956. Therefore the premises were not subject to the control of rent legislation.

In the court below the plaintiff gave evidence in support of her case. But in her examination-in-chief her counsel omitted to adduce evidence relating to the notice to quit and the fact that the premises were constructed in 1956.

The defendant was given an opportunity to cross-examine which he did not exercise.

Then in re-examination which the learned Magistrate permitted the plaintiff tendered the following exhibits: —

A notice to quit.

An A.R. card.

A letter from the Town Council dated 6.11.77 proving construction in 1956.

The title deed.

A receipt for assessment.

The learned Magistrate admitted these documents into evidence and marked them exhibits P1, P1A, P2, P3 and P4.

Thereafter, instead of inviting the defendant to cross-examine on these documents the le