1. This is an appeal by the defendant in suit for ejectment from two shops belonging to the temple of Savitriji of which the plaintiff is the manager. Most of the questions in dispute in the Courts below are now concluded by findings of fact. This appeal has been urged before me on three grounds.
2. That the notice to quit given by the plaintiff was invalid on the ground that it did not terminate on the expiry of a, month of the tenancy as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. That the notice was invalid under the Full Bench ruling in 7 All. 899, because it gave the defendant an option to pay enhanced rent.
4. That the notice was invalid because-it was not signed by the plaintiff but by his general attorney and because the heading of the notice does not state that the plaintiff was giving notice in his capacity as manager.
5. There is no force in any of these pleas. The first point was not raised anywhere in either of the two Courts below, and the appellant is not entitled to raise if now, all the more as there is no evidence on the record to show that the notice did not expire with a month of the tenancy. The appellant's plea in fact is based on the fact that in the notice it is stated that the rent was payable on the 1st of each month. It seems clear on a perusal of the notice that the plaintiff in issuing the notice understood that to be the date on which the tenancy ended. The question on what day of the month the tenancy ended is a question of fact as to which no evidence was led and there was no controversy in the Courts below. I accordingly reject this plea.
6. As to the second point a perusal of the notice shows that it is by no means on all fours with the notice which was considered in the Full Bench ruling in Bradley v. Atkinson (1885) 7 All. 899. In that case the person giving the notice said that if the premises were not vacated he would sue for ejectment and for recovery of rent at an enhanced rate. In this case the notice definitely informs the defendant that he is required to quit the premises on the 1st of August, 1921, and that if not a suit for his eviction will be filed and rent by way of mesne profits (vasilat) will be claimed. This merely means that if there is any delay in the defendant quitting the premises in accordance with the notice he will be liable for damages for his continued occupation. It in no way invalidates the notice and indeed this point like the first, was not raised in the Court below.
7. As ho the third point the shops that the shops belonged to the temple of Savitriji is clearly stated in the body of the notice and the notice is not invalid because it is signed by the authorised agent of the plaintiff instead of by the plaintiff him self.
8. There is no force in the appeal and I accordingly dismiss it with costs.