Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal filed by the defendant Krishna Gopal against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur, dated the 31st of May, 1946, confirming the judgment and the decree of the Sub-Judge, Jaipur, dated 24th of February, 1945, by which the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of a house and for Rs. 180/2/- Kaldar as rent up to the date of the institution of the suit was decreed with costs. The plaintiff was also allowed a decree for rent at the rate of Rs. 27/- p. m. up to the date of the delivery of the possession of the house. The defendant, however, was allowed to remove the constructions put by him in the house.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif, West, Jaipur, 26. 2. 1942 for ejectment of a house and for arrears of rent on the basis of an agreement of the defendant dated the 1st of July, 1940, which was stated to be a lease for one year. THE plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant to quit his house on the 14th of October, 1941, and also informed him that in case he continued in possession he would be liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 40/- p. m. THE plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 302/- as the arrears of rent. The defendant admitted the tenancy but contested that it was for a fixed period of one year and that the plaintiff was not entitled to eject him by virtue of a subsequent agreement under which the defendant expended certain sums of money in the improvement of the house on the understanding that he would recoup the expenditure so incurred by him out of the rent of the property. He, therefore, claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to eject him until he was fully reimbursed out of rent. The trial Court held that the defendant failed to prove an agreement on the part of the plaintiff to permit the defendant to make improvements on the property and to reimburse the amount so spent out of the rent. It further held that the notice served on the defendant by the plaintiff was sufficient in law to terminate the tenancy. The plaintiff was, therefore, allowed a decree for ejectment of the house and for the arrears of rent. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the first Court in the Court of the District Judge but was unsuccessful. In this appeal he has raised three points. Firstly that the notice served upon him to quit the house was not a good notice in law to entitle the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy. Secondly that the Courts below were wrong in allowing the plaintiff rent at an enhanced rate by way of compensation from the date of the notice and finally that the defendant should be allowed a decree of Rs. 508/4/6 against the plaintiff being the amount spent by the defendant in improvement of the property. It may be observed that at the time this suit was filed the Transfer of Property Act was not in force in Jaipur. The provisions of section 106 T. P. . Act cannot, therefore, be invoked. The notice of ejectment which was posted by the plaintiff on the 14th of October, 1941, was received by the defendant on the 18th of November, 1941 and the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the premises on the first of November, 1941. The defendant, therefore, got only 14 days' notice to vacate. Under the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act a clear notice of 15 days is necessary. Both the Courts below have treated this notice good because the Transfer of Property Act did not apply and 14 days' time was considered sufficient in the circumstances of this case. The learned Advocate of the appellant has argued that the defendant was carrying on a trade on the premises and 14 days' time was not enough for him to transfer his business to some other place. I am inclined to think that probably 14 days' time could not be considered sufficient to enable the defendant to shift his business to some other house. But the argument of the plaintiff's Advocate appears sound that the lease in the present case was for a fixed term of one year and no notice was necessary because the tenancy terminated by afflux of time. The defendant does not admit the tenancy to be for a fixed period but he has not been able to establish his case in this behalf The agreement signed by the defendant dated the 1st of July, 1940, lays down in very clear terms that he rented the house for one year only. It cannot, therefore, be held that the tenancy was not for a fixed period. The lower appellate court was, therefore, right in holding that it was the case of a lease for one year only. A tenancy terminates by afflux of time in case when it is for a fixed period and in the present case when the tenancy is held to be for one year only it terminated after the lapse of one year from the date the premises were occupied by the defendant under the terms of the lease. No notice to quit was, therefore, necessary in the present case and it is, therefore, not required to decide if the notice was for a reason* able time or otherwise. After having received notice requiring the defendant to pay rent at an enhanced rate the defendant did not keep quiet but sent a reply to the plaintiff in unambiguous terms and expressed his unwillingness to take the premises at a higher rate of rent. No implied contract can, therefore, be gathered from the exchange of notices in favour of the plaintiff for the payment of an enhanced rate of rent. The Courts below have allowed the plaintiff rent at an enhanced rate by way of compensation but the plaintiff has not been able to prove the facts entitling him to any compensation by way of enhanced rate of rent. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff never claimed in his plaint higher rate of rent by way of compensation and he, therefore, could not have proved any facts entitling him to such compensation. The advocate of the plaintiff placed his reliance on a letter written by the defendant in which he expressed his willingness to pay a rent of Rs. 27/- p. m. but it may be remarked that the plaintiff did not accept the offer made by the defendant in this letter and it cannot be given effect to because the proposals made by the defendant did not materialize into a contract. In this letter the defendant also said that he may be allowed to retain the premises for a further period of 3 years which the plaintiff was not prepared to accept. The courts below have allowed Rs. 27/- as rent of the premises to the plaintiff on the strength of the aforesaid letter of the defendant. But I think that the proposal of the defendant cannot help the plaintiff in getting a higher rate of rent as compensation. The plaintiff has not placed any material on record which may go to help him in getting a decree for rent at a higher rate. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff was only entitled to rent by way of compensation at the contrac-tual rate of Rs. 2o/- p. m. for the period the defendant remained in occupation of the premises after the termination of the lease, and not at the rate of Rs 27/- as adjudged by the courts below. Coming to the third point of the cost of improvement the courts below have held that the defendant could not prove the agreement he set-up and in pursuance of which he is said to have incurred expenditure. This being a question of fact this Court is not to go into it at this stage. His plea of Rs. . 508/4/- cannot, therefore, be allowed against the plaintiff. As has been directed by the courts below he is, however, at liberty to remove such of the things affixed by him on the premises as can be removed without any injury to the property. He would, however, leave the premises in the same condition in which he occupied them. This appeal is partially allowed and the amount of the arrears of rent decreed by the courts below shall be varied in light of this decision, that is, for the period for which an enhanced rare of rent at Rs. 27/- p. m. has been allowed to the plaintiff such amount as is found due by calculating the rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- p. m. shall be substituted. With this variation the decree of the court below is confirmed. The defendant shall get the costs of this appeal from the plaintiff on the amount of the reduction of the arrears of rent and the plaintiff shall get the costs from the defendant on the amount the defendant has been unsuccessful in this appeal. . ;