JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a landlord's second appeal from the decree of the Civil Judge of Moradabad and dismissing their suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The plaintiff appellants Prem Lal and his four sons alleged that they are the owners of its shop in Moradabad which was let out to the defendant respondent Jagat Prakash on a rent of Rs. 13/- per month. They further alleged that the defendant he did not pay the rent for several years and ultimately a sum of Rs. 387.58 became due from him. According to the plaintiffs a notice of demand was served on the defendant but he did not pay the rent, and the plaintiffs filed this suit after terminating his tenancy. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that he had wilfully defaulted. He explained that the rent had not been paid as he was not aware who the owner of the property was and also because he was out of station. He pleaded in the alternative that there was no contract of tenancy between the parties. The trial court held that the defendant had committed default and decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. On appeal by the defendant the learned Judge confirmed the decree for recovery of rent, but set aside that for ejectment on the ground, to quote his own words, "that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the eviction of the defendant as there is no valid contract and it offends against the provisions of Rent Control and Eviction Act", and on the further ground that "the notice Ex. 3 (of demand) is very vague and it does not give option to continue his tenancy after paying the rent within one month. It says that the rent be paid after expiry of one month without specifying any limit." The plaintiffs have come to this Court in second appeal. 2. In my view the decision of the learned Civil Judge is manifestly erroneous. He thought that a suit for ejectment by the landlord is incompetent unless there was an agreement of tenancy between the parties. But he was in error because he confused a suit for ejectment with one for recovery of rent. Ejectment is recovery of possession of property by evicting someone in wrongful possession. He thought that a suit for ejectment by the landlord is incompetent unless there was an agreement of tenancy between the parties. But he was in error because he confused a suit for ejectment with one for recovery of rent. Ejectment is recovery of possession of property by evicting someone in wrongful possession. Possession is an attribute of ownership, which vests exclusively in the owner unless he has parted with it - as under a lease, or lost it - as by adverse possession. Therefore, he is entitled to recover possession of his property from any one who is in wrongful possession and cannot show a right to retain it. A suit for ejectment - or recovery of possession, which is the same thing is founded on the inherent right of the owner, or his representative, to recover possession of his property and not upon any agreement of tenancy. In fact it is the defendant who relies on the tenancy to resist ejectment by showing that he has acquired a right to occupy the property. Precisely for this reason and to defeat such a plea in defence, a landlord suing for recovery of possession of the accommodation from a tenant must terminate the tenancy first and thereby deprive the tenant of his right to possession. Without such prior termination, a suit for ejectment must fail because the tenant can rely on his tenancy and assert his right to remain in possession. The learned Judge dismissed the suit because he found that there was no valid contract of tenancy, but did not realise that this was a ground for decreeing the suit for ejectment and not dismissing it, because in the absence of such a contract a tenant has no right to occupy the land and the land-lord can rely in his inherent right as owner to recover possession of his property. 3. The learned Judge refused ejectment also because, according to him, the notice of demand was vague. This reason is inconsistent with the first, for if there was no tenancy, there was no liability to pay nor any right to demand rent. But I find nothing vague about the notice, which was read out before me. 3. The learned Judge refused ejectment also because, according to him, the notice of demand was vague. This reason is inconsistent with the first, for if there was no tenancy, there was no liability to pay nor any right to demand rent. But I find nothing vague about the notice, which was read out before me. The relevant words are "tum hamara Kiraya ek mah ke guzarne par ada kardo." Any reasonable person would interpret this notice as meaning a demand for payment of rent by the end of the month, but the learned Judge interpreted these words as meaning "that the rent be paid after expiry of one month without specifying any limit." This is an interpretation which offends against common sense. 4. I must point a glaring inconsistency in the decision of the learned Judge. On the one hand, he held that there was no contract of tenancy and on the other he confirmed the decree for rent not realising that rent can be claimed only under a contract of tenancy. 5. I allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and restore that of the trial court with costs throughout. Appeal allowed.