Charles Sargent, C.J.
1. The Assistant Judge has disposed of this case in lavour of the defendant on two grounds: (1), that, assuming defendant to have been plaintiff's tenant, he could not be ejected without notice.
2. That the evidence was, in his opinion, strongly in favour of defendant's proprietary right.
3. As the defendant has throughout denied the plaintiff's title the plaintiff would be under no obligation to prove notice, supposing it to be established that defendant was his tenant. See Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, (11th ed.), p. 325; Doe d. Trustees of the Bedford Charity v. Payne 7 Q.B. 287; Vivian v. Moat 16 Ch. Div. 730.
4. As to the opinion expressed by the Assistant Judge in favour of defendant's proprietary title, it is accompanied by no reasons, and cannot be accepted as a conclusive finding-Krishnarav Yash-vant v. Vasudev Apaji Gholikar I.L.R. 8 Bom. 371. We must, therefore, reverse the decree, and send the case back for a fresh decision. Costs of appeal to abide the result.