Present: Schneider J.

 BANDARA v. APPUHAMY.

115-C. R. Gampola, 5,757.

Lease--Lessor placed in possession by owner under a writing which was not notarially executed-Lease for three years-Subsequent lease to third party-Action in ejectment by subsequent lessee-Lessee under informal lease a monthly tenant, and not tenant-at-will- Notice necessary before ejectment.

Where a person is in possession of a land by virtue of a non-notarial lease for a number of years, he is to be regarded as a monthly tenant, and not as a tenant-at-will or tenant by sufferance or trespasser. He is entitled to a month's notice before ejectment.

THE facts appear from the judgment.

Navaratnam, for plaintiff, appellant.-An agreement for a period exceeding a month can be of no force or avail unless such a contract is entered into formally in conformity with section 2 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1840. In the present case the respondent relies on an informal document purporting to create a lease for a term of three years. To let him set up thereunder the plea of monthly tenancy and claim a month's notice would be to ignore the provisions of the said Ordinance. Apart from this, the informal document itself makes the tenure conditional upon the execution of a formal lease, and contemplates the precarious character of the tenancy. As there was nothing of a monthly character impressed upon the agreement, in The Secretary of State for War v. Ward [1 (1901)2 Br. Rev. 256.] it. was held that a tenant in possession, under an agreement invalid in law was merely a tenant-at-will, and was liable to be evicted without any demand prior to the institution of the action.

H. V. Perera, for defendant, respondent.-The question is whether the defendant is in unlawful possession. Though the promise to allow the defendant to possess the land for three years is not binding on the plaintiff's lessor in the absence of a notarial lease, yet having put the defendant in possession as his tenant, it is not open to him to deny that defendant is his tenant. Being a tenant, the defendant is entitled to notice to quit. His possession is lawful till he is so noticed.

As to the length of notice required, it has been held that a person in the position of the defendant is entitled to a month's notice. Wambeek v. Le Mesurier [1 (1898) 3 N. L. R. 105] and Buultjens v. Carolis.[ 2 {1919) 21 N. L. R. 156.] The case of The Secretary of State for War v. Ward (supra) is distinguishable. The defendant is not a tenant-at-will, because there was no agreement creating a tenancy-at-will. Nor is there any reason to treat him as a tenant at will. On the contrary, it is equitable that he should be given at least the same rights, as regards notice to quit, as a monthly tenant.

Navaratnam, replied.

July 31, 1923. SCHNEIDER J.-

In this case the plaintiff sued the defendant in ejectment from an allotment of land, alleging that the defendant was in wrongful possession of it to the plaintiff's loss and damage. He claimed possession by virtue of a notarially attested deed dated November 4, 1922, whereby one Ukku Banda had demised the land to the plaintiff for a period of five years from the date of the instrument. In his answer the defendant denied knowledge of the lease pleaded by the plaintiff, and stated that he was in possession of the land by virtue of a lease granted to him by the plaintiff's lessor by a writing not notarially attested for a period of three years from November 4, 1921, and that he had paid the rent in full for the said term of three years.

The material issues upon which the parties went to trial raised the questions : whether the plaintiff could maintain his action against the defendant, whether the defendant was in wrongful possession, and whether the answer disclosed a lawful defence to plaintiff's claim ? The plaintiff gave evidence, and stated that after the execution of the deed in his favour he went to the lan