JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of suit for ejectment in respect of a shop situated in the city of Udaipur. The shop originally belonged to Bhagwati Lal from whom the appellant Heeralal as well as one Poumal, decreased, had taken it on lease on monthly rent of Rs. 33/- from 16th October, 1954. On 18th February,1969, the plaintiff respondent purchased the shop from Bhagwati Lal and after serving a notice of termination of tenancy on the ground that the shop was require by him for his reasonable and bonafide personal necessity. The suit was resisted mainly on two grounds namely, (1) that the plaintiff did not required the shop and (2) that the notice of termination of tenancy was not valid. The trial court decreed the suit and the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, affirmed the trial court's judgement. Hence, this second appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is proved on the record that the shop was leased out to a partnership firm constituted by Heera Lal and Poumal and on the death of Poumal, the tenancy came to an end and a fresh tenancy came into existence between Bhagwati Lal and Hera Lal, which would be deemed to have commenced from the 1st of the calender month by virtue of provisions of section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. This point has no substance, inasmuch no such plea was taken in the written statement nor any issue was framed to the effect whether the shop in question had been leased out to a partnership firm consisting of Heera Lal and Pohumal. From the language of the lease deed, it is amply clear that Heera Lal and Pohumal in their individual capacity had jointly taken the shop on lease. On the death of Pohumal, Heera Lal continued to occupy the shop in question as a lessee on the conditions and terms incorporated in the original lease deed. This finding arrived at by the courts below is perfectly in order as it is based on good and legal evidence and does not call for any interference. 3. In the lease deed there is a specific condition that the lease will be liable to be terminated one one month's notice. It is undisputed that one month's period for vacating the shop was given in the notice of ejectment. 3. In the lease deed there is a specific condition that the lease will be liable to be terminated one one month's notice. It is undisputed that one month's period for vacating the shop was given in the notice of ejectment. It is true that the notice did not terminate with the end of the calendar month. But since there was a condition of one month's notice only, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have strictly complied with the provisions of sections 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. No other defect was pointed out in the notice. In agreement with the courts below, I hold that the notice of termination of tenancy was valid and proper. The only other point pressed before me is that the plaintiff has failed to establish his reasonable and bonafide need for the suit shop. Both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding that one of the shop, which is in the plaintiff's occupation, has been ordered to be vacated in a suit filed by his landlord. Apart from that when the plaintiff is admittedly occupying a shop on rent for his business, his requirement for his own shop cannot be said to be unreasonable and malafide. The finding arrived at in this respect by the courts below is a finding of fact on sound reasons and cannot be interfered with in second appeal. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one year's time may be granted to his client who is carrying on 'Kirana' business in the shop in question since 1954. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, opposes his request and submits that the shop is required by the plaintiff for his own use and that the plaintiff is likely to be further harassed on account of a suit having been filed by the alleged heirs of Pohumal who had no interest left in the leased shop. Learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the shop is in exclusive possession of his client. Heera Lal who is duty bound to surrender the possession of the shop to the plaintiff in pursuance of the decree passed by this court. Learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the shop is in exclusive possession of his client. Heera Lal who is duty bound to surrender the possession of the shop to the plaintiff in pursuance of the decree passed by this court. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I hereby direct that six months time may be granted to the appellant for handing over vacant possession of the shop in question, provided he pays to the respondent. Panna Lal or deposits in the executing court arrears of rent, if any, due upto the end of October, 1974 within one month from today and goes on paying month to month rent hereafter on or before 15th of the following month. Arrears of rent, if already deposited, may be paid to the respondent. *******