Maclean, C.J:— In my opinion this reference was unnecessary. It proceeds upon the footing that the Defendants were tenants-at-will. But when we look at the Plaintiff's pleading, it is manifest that was not the position of the Defendants, but that they were tenants at an annual rent, in other words, yearly tenants. That being so, the authorities are clear that the Defendants were entitled to a reasonable notice before the suit was brought. It is said that we cannot go into that question now, but I think we can: for the question as to the nature of the tenancy, whether the Defendants were merely tenants-at-will or whether they were yearly tenants is a question of law with which we can deal on second appeal, as the whole appeal is before us. There is therefore no necessity to answer the questions submitted to us. But as the appeal is before us, and the Defendants were entitled to a reasonable notice before the suit was brought, which notice was not given, we hold that the suit fails and must be dismissed and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs including the costs of this reference.
Prinsep, J.:— I agree.
Ghose, J.:— I agree.
Harington, J.:— I agree.
Brett, J.:— I agree.
H.P.C
Appeal dismissed.