B. PANIGRAHI, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT, in T. S. No. 56 of 1978/150/75 before the Court of Munsif, 1st Additional Court, Howrah had challenged the Judgment and Decree of affirmance passed by the Additional District Judge, Howrah 2nd Court in T. A. 316 of 1985. The facts leading to this appeal are thus :- ( 2 ) THAT the plaintiffs have filed the suit for ejectment and for arrear rents against the defendant. It is stated that the defendant was a habitual defaulter since June 1974. The registered notice was sent through the advocate of the plaintiffs to the defendant claiming arrears of rent and ejectment. The Acknowledge Due Cards, after service, came back to the learned Advocate of the plaintiffs. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated after notice. Defendant in his written statement has however, disputed that he was a defaulter much less since June 1974. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff no. 1 filed a amendment petition claiming that after his retirement from service he decided to open a watch repairing shop in the suit premises and to carry on business. Therefore the plaintiffs wanted the premises for reasonable requirement. ( 3 ) THE learned Trial Court held in his Judgment that there was proper notice issued by the plaintiff demanding to quit the defendant from the suit premises and accordingly Exhibits 9, 10 (a), 10 (b) and 10 (c) were received by the defendant on 7th March, 1975. Though such notice was refuted by the defendant but both the courts have concurrently held that there was proper notice. In the aforesaid situation affirming the finding of the learned courts below, I also hold that the appellant had received notices from the plaintiffs through their advocate to quit the suit premises prior to the suit. ( 4 ) THE plaintiffs for proving their ownership over the suit house produced a certificate of sale of land standing in the name of one Sri Dwarika Nath Nandi who was no other than the grand father of the plaintiff No. 1. As per Ext. 15 the sale certificate standing in the name of the plaintiff No. 1's grand father, it appears that he had purchased the property by auction purchase. In addition to this, the plaintiff relied on Khatian vide Ext. 1 and the Municipal tax receipts Ext. As per Ext. 15 the sale certificate standing in the name of the plaintiff No. 1's grand father, it appears that he had purchased the property by auction purchase. In addition to this, the plaintiff relied on Khatian vide Ext. 1 and the Municipal tax receipts Ext. 2 series which would indisputably reveal that the plaintiff's grand father was the owner of the property which the plaintiffs have succeeded. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs though flied a Will Ext. 14 but the same has not been probated. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has critically placed the findings of the courts below that the Will purported to have been executed in favour of the plaintiffs could not confer any right on them without it being probated. Even apart from the Will the plaintiff succeeded to the Estate of Dwarika Nath Nandi by inheritance. Had the Will been probated after due execution in favour of other persons than the natural heirs of the owner, the natural heirs could not have claimed any right by virtue of such disposition of property which could deprive them from the property. But in this case even ignoring the Will the plaintiffs have otherwise acquired the estate of Dwarika Nath Nandi as his natural heirs after his death. Therefore, there is no basis for the appellant to contend that in the absence of the Will being probated, the plaintiffs, cannot claim ownership over the property. Moreover, the defendant claiming himself to be a tenant of the suit premises cannot dispute the title of the landlord or his successors. The learned trial Court in it, judgment further held that there was reasonable requirement for the respondent No. 1 and the aforementioned findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. ( 6 ) BOTH the courts have also concurrently held that the appellant fell in arrear of rent to the landlord. Therefore, it is held that the appellant had default in paying rent to the respondents. ( 7 ) THE sole question has been raised in this appeal that the plaintiffs were incompetent to maintain the suit in view of the fact their Will being not probated. This Court in its decision reported in Calcutta Law Times, 1992 (1) HC, 144, in the case of Sri Raghunath Prasad v. Sri Sant Lal Show and Ors. ( 7 ) THE sole question has been raised in this appeal that the plaintiffs were incompetent to maintain the suit in view of the fact their Will being not probated. This Court in its decision reported in Calcutta Law Times, 1992 (1) HC, 144, in the case of Sri Raghunath Prasad v. Sri Sant Lal Show and Ors. held :-"succession by the heir to the estate is not ruled out even where there is an unprobated Will. " the learned counsel for the appellant was not able to city any decision as to how in the absence of Will being probated, the natural heirs of the testator shall be deprived of the property. The defendant in his additional written statement had never disputed the ownership of the plaintiffs though it was specifically claimed by the plaintiffs. ( 8 ) IT is settled position in law that an unprobated Will can be used for co-lateral purpose. It has been already held that apart from the Will the plaintiffs have acquired title to the property by virtue of being successor of Dwarika Nath Nandi. Therefore, they acquired an indefeasible right over the suit premises. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.