Das, J.The only question involved in this appeal is whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in giving damages to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 500 per month The defendant was a monthly tenant and on the 30th of January 1917 the plaintiff served the following notice upon defendants.

2. Under instructions from our clients, Messrs. Brindaban Ghansham Das, of No. 20, Rajas Katra, Barabazar, we give you notice to quit and vacate the above house and godown and press house, etc., at the end of the ensuing month of February 1917, which you are now occupying as a monthly tenant. If you fail to comply with our above requisition, our clients will take the necessary steps to eject yon from the premises in question and hold you liable for all loss and damage sustained by them on account of your failure to vacate the premises."

3. The defendant did not vacate the premises, and the suit was instituted by the plaintiffs on the 30th April 1917. There was a distinct notice given to the defendants that they would be held liable for all loss and damages. In my view, the learned Judge in the Court below was right in giving damages to the plaintiffs.

4. The next question is as to the quantum of damages awarded by the Court to the plaintiffs.

5. Now on a question of quantum of damages, it is not the practice of this Court to interfere with the decision of the Court of first instance, except on a question of principle. I am unable to say that the learned Judge in the Court below has adopted a wrong principle in assessing damages. It was proved to his satisfaction that the plaintiffs could have let the house and premises to another tenant on Rs. 500 a month. I must dismiss this appeal with costs.

Ross, J.

6. I agree.