JUDGMENT Rampini and Peatt, JJ. - The Defendant occurs a bigha of land under the Plaintiffs. The land was let to him for purposes of cultivation. He has made a large excavation in the land, which renderd it unfit for the purpose for which it was demised to him. The Plaintiffs therefore served on him a notice calling on him to fill up the excavation or to pay them Rs. 320 damages or failing to do either to quit the land. The Defendant did not comply with the terms of the notice and so the Plaintiffs have brought this suit to eject him from the land. The district Judge has dismissed the suit, on the ground that the notice was bad, as the damages claimed in the notice were claimed in the alternative, whereas in his view the Plaintiff should have claimed damages in addition to the compensation demanded in lieu of filling up the excavation. 2. The Plaintiffs appeal. We are of opinion that the view taken by the Judge is not warranted by the terms of Section 155. That section requires that the notice should call upon the tenant to remedy the misuse complained of and should further call upon him to pay compensation for the misuse. The notice served on the Defendant complied with these provisions. It no doubt claimed the compensation in the alternative. This does not, we think, render the notice bad. That the claim for damages was in the alternative was in favour of the tenant. We think there is no ground or reason for the view of the District Judge that the notice must call upon the tenant not only to pay compensation to the landlord for the misuse complained of, but also some additional compensation over and above the amount required to remedy the misuse of the land of which the tenant has been guilty. 3. We have been referred to the case of Pershad Singh v. Ram Pertab Roy ILR (1894) Cal. 77 in which it was held that a notice in which no compensation was claimed was bad and that in every ease such compensation must be demanded. 4. In that case no compensation at all was claimed in the notice. In the notice in this case the Defendant was called upon to pay compensation if he did not choose to remedy his misuse of the land. 4. In that case no compensation at all was claimed in the notice. In the notice in this case the Defendant was called upon to pay compensation if he did not choose to remedy his misuse of the land. Hence, the ruling cited does not apply. As we have already, said, we do not think the notice was bad merely because the compensation was demanded in the alternative. 5. The Respondent's pleader argues that the suit is barred by limitation because the lease of the Defendant contains a clause apparently providing that he shall quit the land if he changes its condition. It has been contended that this clause only precludes the tenant from altering the class (bira) of the land. But in any case we think the period of limitation is two years, because the Plaintiffs sued to eject the tenant for misusing the land and not for breaking a condition of the lease. Even if the landlord binds the tenant down not to alter the condition of the land, this does not reduce the period of limitation allowed him by the law from two years to one, when the tenant misuses the land and renders it unfit for the purpose for which it was demised. 6. We accordingly decree the appeal with costs in proportion. The decree of the munsif is restored, save as to costs. 7. The Defendant will have two months' time from this date to fill up the hole, or pay Rs. 40 damages. The record will be sent down to the first Court at once.