Judgement JUDGEMENT :- This second appeal is by the defendant who lost in both the Courts below. 2. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of the question of law urged before me by the learned counsel for the appellant may be stated thus: The suit land is situated within the Municipal area of the Imphal Municipality. The plaintiffs case is that they are the owners of the land in question and that they leased out the suit land to the defendants with effect from 1st April 1950 at a monthly rental of Rs. 30, later on, raised to Rs. 45 per month, with effect from 1955. As the plaintiffs required the property in question, they issued a notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy by the end of February 1959 and requesting him to vacate the property with effect from the 1st of March 1959. In spite of the notice, it has been alleged, the defendant did not vacate the house. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction and also for arrears of rent and for mesne profit. 3. The defendant, inter alia, took the plea in his written statement that no notice to quit was served on him. It may further be mentioned that in the suit the defendant also totally denied the plaintiffs ownership to the property. His case was that the land in question belonged to the Government and the house in question was constructed by him. 4. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land and the house in suit and that the defendant was their tenant. The only other question for decision was whether the tenancy in question was terminated in accordance with law. It is true, as submitted by Mr. Imo Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the Courts did not frame a precise issue on the point. But nevertheless, both the Courts below have given the necessary findings on the question as the plea of the defendant was that no notice of eviction was served on him. Both the Courts below proceeded on the footing that if the service of notice on the defendant was proved, it would be for the Court to examine the notice and find whether or not it was in accordance with law. Both the Courts below proceeded on the footing that if the service of notice on the defendant was proved, it would be for the Court to examine the notice and find whether or not it was in accordance with law. As stated, both the Courts below have not only found that a registered notice of eviction was served on the defendant, but that it was a valid one. The learned District Judge has found that under Section 106 T. P. Act, a notice was served on the defendant terminating the tenancy with the end of February 1959 and he has based his finding on a perusal of the notice in question and also on the evidence of the respondent Ganesh Singh, since deceased. The learned District Judge further has found that the notice was served on the defendant on 10th February 1959, terminating the tenancy by the end of that month, which gives the defendant more than 15 days time. The submission of the appellant is that there is no finding by any of the Courts below that the tenancy was with effect from the first of an English month The answer is that it is the plaintiffs case in the plaint and not denied by the defendant in the written statement. 5. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the suit the plaintiffs claimed an alternative remedy, namely, that if the plaintiffs failed to prove tenancy, the suit may be treated as one for title and their title be declared and the defendant evicted as trespasser. The learned Munsiff granted the alternative decree. In my opinion, it was unnecessary as the plaintiffs succeeded to establish the tenancy. 6. This appeal has no substance and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.