1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of the Second Court of the 24-Pergannahs affirming the decision of the Munsif of the Second Court at Alipore. The plaintiff brought the suit for ejectment after service of a notice to quit. The only point urged in this appeal is about the sufficiency of the notice. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that the notice was a six months' notice expiring at the end of the Bengali year. But the notice was not served six clear months before because apparently it was served about the 1st Kartik and, to give six clear months, it ought to have been served not later than the last day of Aswin. But the finding is that the defendant is a tenant-at-will of the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts have found that the tenancy is of that nature, and as it is a tenancy-at-will, it is manifest that the Court could find that this notice served about the 1st Kartik expiring at the end of the Bengali year was a reasonable notice. The question what is a reasonable notice is largely a question of fact, although as regards tenancies of certain nature, the Court has laid down definitely as a rule of law that the notice must be of a particular length of time. But in the case of a tenancy-at-will, it was never laid down as to what was the length required. The learned Judge had manifestly evidence before him in finding that this notice was a good and valid notice. I cannot imagine that any tenant-at-will is entitled to a notice of anything like the length of six months as given in the present case. The present appeal fails and must be dismissed. No one appearing for the respondent, we make no order as to costs.
2. I agree.