Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the appellant who is a tenant in the suit premises, i.e. No. 13 Ravindranagar, Indore, on rent at Rs. 50/- per month, after terminating the tenancy by notice expiring on 31st July 1971 The notice was dated 6th July 1971 and was served on the defendant-appellant on 13th July 1971. The plaintiff sought a decree under section 12 (1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, alleging that he had to reside in rented premises at Indore and that he required the suit premises for his residence, and further that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own available in the town. The defendant-appellant denied the claim made by the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit and against that dismissal a first appeal was preferred wherein the learned Additional District Judge by the impugned judgment set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit for eviction. 2. The appellant raised two questions in the second appeal : (i) that the notice terminating the tenancy was not. legal as it only gave 15 days' time after the service of notice and the plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted that a notice for one month was necessary; and (ii) that the requirement of the plaintiff respondent was not genuine. 3. Held: The statement of the plaintiff on the basis of which the plea about the validity of notice is raised has been rejected by the learned lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant read out to me the cross-examination of the plaintiff wherein a' general question was put that between the landlord and tenant a notice of one month is required on either side if they wanted to vacate. The answer clearly goes to show that the learned counsel who cross-examined the plaintiff suggested a general legal proposition and an ignorant plaintiff admitted it. But no plea in the written statement Was raised that there was any specific contract between the plaintiff and the defendant that the tenancy could be only terminated by notice for one month or was such clear question put to the plaintiff. Apparently therefore on such statement the plea about validity of notice could not be accepted and the learned lower appellate Court was right in rejecting this contention. (The second contention repelled on facts). Appeal dismissed.