JUDGMENT McNair, J. - This is an application by the Plaintiff for a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits and possession of certain premises in Harrison Road. The application was made before me on the 5th June and there was no appearance on that date by the Defendant. An order was made as prayed. Thereafter the Defendant appeared by Counsel and the order was vacated on the Defendant paying the costs of the application for that purpose. The matter is now being reheard before me and the Defendant has put in an affidavit in which he denies that he ever occupied the premises as a monthly tenant under the Plaintiff, denies that he received proper notice, and seeks to set up a prevailing custom in Calcutta of giving thirty days' notice to a monthly tenant in order to eject him. 2. It is pointed out by the applicant that if the tenancy is denied, there is no need for the Defendant to receive notice. Notice was in fact sent by registered post on the 14th January, which was received by the Defendant Jhamor on the 17th January. That notice was headed "Babu Nanda Lal Jhamor, 212A Harrison Road, and Johurry Bazar Joypur City." Notice was also served at 212A, Harrison Road on the 14th January 1935 on the Defendant's munim gomastha, Haridas Pakulia. This fact is stated in the affidavit in reply and the Defendant says that he has been unable to contradict it, but on instructions Counsel states that there is nobody of that name in the Defendant's service. 3. For the Petitioner reliance is placed on sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and it is contended that fifteen days' notice is sufficient in a monthly tenancy, and that contention appears to me to be correct. 4. Relying on a note on page 535 of Sir Dinshaw Mulla's 1933 edition of the Transfer of Property Act the Defendant seeks to set up a prevailing custom in Calcutta giving one month's notice in the case of monthly tenancy. That proposition in the text book professes to be based on a decision in Nocoordass Mullick v. Jewraj Baboo 12 B. L. R. 263 (1873). The report does not support the statement. That proposition in the text book professes to be based on a decision in Nocoordass Mullick v. Jewraj Baboo 12 B. L. R. 263 (1873). The report does not support the statement. All that was said there by the learned Judge was that it appeared to him in the circumstances of that case that there was a monthly tenancy and that a month's notice, which is the ordinary notice that would be required in England, should be given. There is no suggestion that there was any special custom or that any special custom had been proved, or even asserted. I am satisfied on the affidavits that the Defendant did receive notice and that there is no ground on which he is justified in asking for leave to defend. In the circumstances the order will be made in terms of summons. Certified for Counsel.