Short Note : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against a decree for possession of the land in dispute passed by Civil Judge Class II, Sendhwa and maintained on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Barwani by his judgment dated 22nd January 1968. Held: It is not disputed that as the notice was received by the appellant on 17-9-1963 he had more than 15 days clear notice. The rent-note was executed on 24th April, 1957 and this notice states that the tenancy is terminated on 24th October 1963. From the rent-note it is not clear as to from what date the tenancy would commence although the rent-note does state that the possession is taken on that date i.e. 24th April and the rent will commence also from that date. According to learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, in the notice it should have been stated that the tenancy is terminated on the midnight of 23rd and not 24th. This question has been considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagvandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas Kanu and others, AIR 1977 SC 1120 . Similarly, in Motilal v. Rameshkumar Jain, S.A. No. 405 of 1967 D/Indore 17-1-1974 and reported at Note No. 124 in 1974 JLJ, it has been observed that notice to quit must not be construed strictly. Consequently, as it is clear that the tenant-appellant clearly got a fortnight's notice for eviction it could not be held that the notice, terminating the tenancy was invalid. 2. What is stated in the amendment is that the land being agricultural the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code will apply. Admittedly, the land is situated within the township of Seadhwa. As the description of the land, which is not in dispute, indicates that it is land in between the houses in a locality, how the appellant wants this land to be construed as agricultural depends upon facts which have not been clearly stated either in the written statement or in the amendment application. It is also clear that the appellant even in the amendment application has not pleaded as to how he became a subtenant under the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and thereby became an occupancy tenant. In view of none of these facts having been alleged I do not think that the Court below was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment. In view of none of these facts having been alleged I do not think that the Court below was wrong in rejecting the application for amendment. It is also not stated as to why this application was not made earlier or the plea as was available to the tenant appellant was not raised in the written-statement originally. In view of this the learned lower appellate Court's order rejecting the application on the ground of delay also appears to be justified. It could not be disputed that by this amendment the defendant-appellant is trying to raise altogether a new plea and there is nothing to indicate that this could not be raised by him at the time of the filing of the written-statement. AIR 1977 SC 1120 and 1974 JLJ SN 124 relied on. Appeal dismissed.