Falshaw, J. - (1.) This second appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted, by Prem Chand respondent for the ejectment of Mul Raj petitioner from a certain vacant site after allowing him time to remove the materials of certain structures erected by him on the site and for Rs. 60/- as arrears of rent at Rs. 12/- per mensem.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant on all possible grounds. He raised the preliminary objection that the suit was not competent in view of the provisions of the Punjab Rent Restrictions Act III of 1949, but this was decided against him as a preliminary issue, and the finding of the trial Court was upheld in revision by this Court, and on the merits he disputed the validity of the notice of ejectment and claimed that he had built certain structures on the site with the consent of the plaintiff who was therefore liable to compensate him on this account. Although it was found by the trial Court that the value of the structures erected by the defendant was Rs. 533/-, it was found against him that the structures were erected without the plaintiffs consent and that the latter was not liable to pay compensation and the validity of the ejectment notice was upheld. The result was that the plaintiff's claim for ejectment of the defendant and for the recovery of Rs. 60/- as arrears of rent was decreed and this decree was upheld by the Court of first appeal.
(3.) The only point raised on behalf of the defendant in the second appeal was the validity of the notice of ejectment. The site in suit was leased by the plaintiff to the defendant by a deed dated 29-10-1949 the tenancy being for a period of 11 months starting on 1-11-1949 after which it became a monthly tenancy. A notice of ejectment was served by the plaintiff on the defendant on 15-11-1952 the terms of which required him to vacate the premises by 30-11-1952.;