1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to eject the tenants from a tank forming a portion of their holding.
2. Several objections have been taken to the decree of the lower Appellate Court, but it seems to us necessary to notice only one of them, because upon that one alone we think it clear that the appellant is entitled to succeed and that the suit of the plaintiff must fail.
3. The suit purports to be based on a notice to quit, but all that the plaintiff alleged or attempted to prove was that he had desired the defendant, the tenant, to give up a certain tank which formed a part only of his holding. The alleged notice, therefore, had not the effect of terminating the tenancy. We understand that a notice to quit is a notice intended to terminate the tenancy, between the landlord and the tenant. The District Judge considered that although the notice related only to a portion of the holding, it was good in law so far as that portion was concerned; that it was in the option of the plaintiff to allow the tenancy to remain as to the rest of the holding, although it was in the option of the defendants to decline to hold the rest if one portion were taken away from him.
4. It seems to us, however, that the Judge was mistaken in supposing that any such option exists in the landlord. If he termintes any portion of the tenancy he terminates the whole contract and if the tenant elects to retain any portion of his holding, that in like manner breaks the bargain and is the commencement of a fresh contract.
5. We think, therefore, that there was no valid notice to quit served in this case and that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action, That being so, we reverse the decree of' the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Munsif by which the suit was dismissed with costs.