GOSWAMI, J.:- This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge No. 2, Cachar, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for eviction of the defendants from the land mention­ed in the schedule to the plaint. Earlier, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit. 2. The grounds on which the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plain­tiff's suit were: firstly, notice which was given was invalid under Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act; secondly, the suit was defective for not making certain sub-lessees as parties in the suit and also for not separately giving them eviction notices; and, thirdly, the plain­tiff failed to prove that she bona fide required the suit land for her own use. 3. We may refer 'very briefly to the facts disclosed in the suit. By a register­ed kabuliyat dated 22-1-1945, the defen­dant No. 1 took the land under the plain­tiff and it is stated therein that the lease will expire on 22-4-1951. It is also stated that the plaintiff gave the defendant No. 1 a patta about the same time. The notice given by the plaintiff which is dated 18-. 8-1959 demanded from the defendant No. 1, who is the main defendant in the case, the others being admittedly the sub­lessees or deriving right from him, to vacate the suit land by 21-9-59 and since this was not complied with, the suit was instituted on 28-4-1960. 4. Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, sub­mits that the learned Subordinate Judge is correct in holding that a new tenancy was created after the expiry of the first, on and from 23-4-51 either by operation of law in view of the provisions of Sec­tion 116 of the Transfer of Property Act or, at any rate, by admission of the plain­tiff herself in her eviction notice. In other words, he submits that since the original lease expired on 22-4-51, a new tenancy was created from 23-4-51 and as such, the notice demanding vacant possession by 21-9-1959 is invalid under the law and the learned Subordinate Judge is justi­fied in dismissing the suit. 5. In other words, he submits that since the original lease expired on 22-4-51, a new tenancy was created from 23-4-51 and as such, the notice demanding vacant possession by 21-9-1959 is invalid under the law and the learned Subordinate Judge is justi­fied in dismissing the suit. 5. In several decisions of this Court, it has been held that Section 110 of the Transfer of Property Act is attracted only in the case of a written lease - a view with which we are in complete agree­ment Apart from that, the lease in this case is not a valid lease under the law in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act as the lessor and the lessee have not executed that document. The so-called lease, which is relied on for the purpose of ascertaining the expiry of the term of the lease is an Inoperative document under title law. Being faced with this difficulty, Mr. Banerjee relies upon the admission of the plaintiff in her eviction notice. Once the contract cannot be looked into for the purpose of ascertaining the term limited therein, the lease, 'although registered in this case, must be deemed to be one from month to month. That being the posi­tion the lease which was operating from 22-1-45 is liable to be terminated under section expiring with the month of the tenancy. The commencement being ad­mittedly 22-1-45, there can be no legal objection to the notice in the instant case demanding vacant possession from the de­fendants by 21-9-1959. We are therefore unable to agree with the learned Sub­ordinate Judge when he relied upon Sec­tion 110 of the Transfer of Property Act to hold that the particular notice is in­valid. The submission that the notice is invalid under the law has no substance. 6. Regarding the second point that certain necessary parties were not im-pleaded in the suit for which the suit was liable to be dismissed, it is sufficient to state that the sub-lessees, as they are,, and parties who are deriving their right from the defendant No. 1, cannot be con­sidered necessary parties in this suit and the suit would not fail for not impleading them. The learned Subordinate Judge is therefore wrong In law in holding that the suit was defective for not having served notice on these pro forma defen­dants or for not impleading the sub­lessees in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge is therefore wrong In law in holding that the suit was defective for not having served notice on these pro forma defen­dants or for not impleading the sub­lessees in the suit. 7. Regarding the third ground that the plaintiff had not proved her bona fide requirement, it is sufficient to state that in a suit of this description where the provisions of the Assam Non-agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act XII of 1955) would apply, such a bona fide requirement is unknown to that law. The learned Subordinate Judge had therefore no occasion to refer to any bona fide requirement, nor was it incumbent on the plaintiff to either plead or establish that element in order to entitle her to succeed in the suit. All the three grounds on which the learned Subordinate Judge based (his judgment?) to dismiss the suit failed. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's suit is decreed. The judgment and decree of the learned Sub­ordinate Judge are set aside and those of the Munsiff are restored. But in the entire circumstances of the case, the par­ties will bear their own costs, through­out. A. M. C. PATHAK, 3.: I agree. Appeal allowed.