JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal is by the tenant defendant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment. 2. THE suit is, admittedly, governed by the West Bengal Premises tenancy Act, 1956. The notice of ejectment is dated August 28, 1962. There is no dispute that this notice was served on the defendant. By this notice, the defendant was asked to vacate the disputed premises by the expiry of the last day of her tenancy for the month of October, 1962, failing which she was threatened with ejectment in due course of Law. The was brought on the ground of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises for her own occupation under the above West bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 3. THE suit was contested and the two grounds, which were urged in defence, were that the notice was bad in law and, secondly, that the plaintiff's case of reasonable requirement of the disputed premises, as required by law, was not true. 4. BOTH the above defences were overruled by the learned trial Judge and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Hence this appeal by the defendant. Before us also, the above two defences have been reiterated in support of this appeal. On the question of the alleged defect in the notice of ejectment, the defendant's case is that, as she was asked to vacate by the expiry of the last day of her tenancy for the month of October, and, accordingly, the notice would be a short or insufficient notice in law. 5. IN our view, this defence was rightly overruled by the learned trial judge. The language of the notice "by the expiry of the last day of the tenancy for the month of October, 1962", would, in our opinion, give the defendant time till the end of the said month for vacating the disputed premises. There was, also, in the above notice, a threat of suit in case of default, of compliance with the same, as already stated. In the circumstances, the notice of ejectmen is a good notice in law and, in particular, under Sec. 13 (6) of the above Act. The defence objection to the contrary is, accordingly, overruled. 6. There was, also, in the above notice, a threat of suit in case of default, of compliance with the same, as already stated. In the circumstances, the notice of ejectmen is a good notice in law and, in particular, under Sec. 13 (6) of the above Act. The defence objection to the contrary is, accordingly, overruled. 6. ON the point of reasonable requirement, the evidence clearly establishes that the plaintiff's family consists of the plaintiff and her husband and their nine children and also the plaintiff's mother-in-law and the two brothers of the plaintiff's husband along with their wives and ten children. It is true that the learned trial Judge held that the said brothers could not be considered to be members of the plaintiff's family, or, in other words, of the family of the plaintiff's husband, although the mother or mother-in-law would be such a member. We feel, however, that, in taking the said view the learned trial Judge went wrong, as, in the circumstances of this case, where the brothers and the mother were living together, we are unable to hold that they would not, for purposes of the relevant law, be considered to be members of the same family. In this view, the plaintiff's requirement would include the requirement of all the above members of the family and, as, on the evidence, the plaintiff has, in her present occupation, three rooms and a kitchen in her present premises, which is a kutcha one, the said accommodation would be insufficient for the above family. We would, accordingly, hold that the learned trial Judge was also right in finding the issue of the plaintiff's reasonable requirement of the disputed premises in her (plaintiff's) favour and this point in support of the appeal would also fail. In the result, this appeal would fail and it would be dismissed but, in the circumstances of this case, we would grant the defendant appellant time till the end of May next to vacate the disputed premises and deliver up vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff decree-holder on condition that she goes on depositing, in the trial court, to the credit of the plaintiff decree-holder, a sum of Rs. 95. 95. 62 P. per month month, by month, regularly, in accordance with the English calendar, within the 15th of the next succeeding month according to the same calendar, on account of current mesne profits, and, further, that she will not sublet the disputed premises during this grace period of her occupation. In default of compliance with any of the above conditions, the above grace period would automatically lapse and this decree will become executable forthwith. There will be no order for costs in this Court.