50 A.2d 593 | D.C. | 1946
Plaintiffs, as landlords, sued defendant for possession of a house on the ground that they had purchased the property and desired it in good faith for their immediate and personal use and occupancy as a dwelling.
The points raised by the appeal require only brief discussion. It is urged, first, that in the complaint defendant was described as a “tenant at sufferance”, whereas the rental agreement, introduced in evidence, showed he was a tenant by the month. The same point was raised in Bell v. Westbrook, D.C.Mun.App., 50 A.2d 264, and decided by us December 12, 1946, adversely to the position of appellant. It is next urged that by the notice to quit, which was served on or about May 14, 1946, defendant was notified to vacate the premises “on or before July 1, 1946.” Conceding that the notice was served approximately 45 days before July 1 and that the first of the month was the day from which the tenancy commenced to run,
It is next urged that the marshal, without using diligent effort to obtain personal service upon appellant, posted the summons on the door. But so far as the record discloses the service was made in
Affirmed.
Code 1940, 45-1605 (b) (2).
Code 1940, 45-902.
Code 1940, 11-736.