Order.- This is an application for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession pursuant to the notice dated 21st June, 1951. The petitioners are occupying two out of the three godowns bearing present Municipal door No. 7 in Stringer Street, G.T., Madras. The property was declared to be evacuee property. The petitioners were paying rent to the evacuee Hajee Mohammed Abbas from 9th December, 1943, till about 25th January, 1951. After the property vested in the respondent under section 8 (4) of the Evacuee Properties Administration Act, 1950, the Deputy Tahsildar took formal possession of the same on 1st February, 1951. He took a cheque for a sum of Rs. 150 from the petitioners and allowed them to continue in possession on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 150. It is not disputed that the petitioners were paying rent of Rs. 150 per month from 1st February, 1951, to the end of June, 1951. After some correspondence between the parties, on 21st June, 1951, the Assistant Custodian issued a notice to the petitioners directing them to vacate one of the two godowns by 23rd July, 1951 and hand over its possession to his representative. They were also informed that in case they did not deliver possession peacefully, they would be evicted from one of the godowns with such police force as might be necessary. The said notice was issued on the basis that the petitioners were not tenants but were in permissive possession. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the relationship between the parties was that of landlord and tenant, and that the Custodian had no power to evict them forcibly. On the facts admitted, it is impossible to say that the relationship between the parties is not that of landlord and tenant. The petitioners were admittedly the tenants of the evacuee. On 1st February, 1951, the Deputy Tahsildar took only formal possession, as the petitioners were in actual occupation. The petitioners also were paying rent from 1st February, 1951, till the end of June. In the absence of any other evidence to establish that the petitioners were allowed to continue to be in possession under some arrangement other than that of a tenancy, I must hold that the petitioners are tenants on a monthly basis. The petitioners also were paying rent from 1st February, 1951, till the end of June. In the absence of any other evidence to establish that the petitioners were allowed to continue to be in possession under some arrangement other than that of a tenancy, I must hold that the petitioners are tenants on a monthly basis. If so, the only provision that enables the Custodian to evict the tenants is Rule 14 (2) framed under the Act (XXXI of 1850). It reads: “In case of a lease or allotment granted by the Custodian himself, the Custodian may evict a person on any ground justifying eviction of a tenant under any law relating to a control of rents for the time being in force in the State concerned, or for any violation of the conditions of the lease or the allotment”. The notice issued in this case does not comply with the provisions of the said rule. It was obviously based on the assumption that the petitioners were not tenants. In the circumstances I direct a writ of prohibition to be issued restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioners otherwise that in strict compliance with the provisions of rule 14(2) framed under the Act. The parties will bear their respective costs. K.S. ----- Writ of prohibition directed to be issued.