clauses contained in the agreement is not a subsequent agreement in writing to deliver possession and as such cannot be treated as notice to quit. 17. As regards third substantial question of law regarding legality and validity and service of notice under section 13(6) of the Act, Mr. Ghosh argued though said notice does not contain any threat of suit but it stated that more than 30 days time to be given to the defendant but here on and from 1st July, 1994 the defendant would be treated as trespasser. However, learned Trial court did not consider that the notice is not a month’s notice because it falls short of eight days from the alleged date of service of notice and as such is bad in law. According to Mr. Ghosh though the notice is dated 18.06.1994 but it came back with the postal endorsement “refused” on 07.07.1994. Mr Ghosh is not disputing that the refusal is good service but according to his contention under the law notice is deemed to have served upon tenant on 07.07.1994 and the notice indicates that the tenant will have to vacate the suit property after expiry of the month July, 1994. The statute clearly says that a notice is not valid unless plaintiff has given to the tenant clear one month notice expiring with the month of tenancy. The provision is mandatory and therefore the court below rightly held that the notice is bad since from the date of service of the notice i.e. from 07.07.1994, there was only 22 days left for the rest of the month, as the tenant was asked to quit on and from 1st August, 1994, which is short of eight days from the mandated 30 days. In this context Mr. Ghosh relied upon Subadini Vs. Durga Charan Law and Ors reported in (1901) ILR 28 CAL 118 . He further relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Mangilal Vs. Sirgan Chand Rathi, reported in AIR 1965 SC 101. He also relied upon
