#### Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Company, Defendant in Error, v. Nicholas Govostis, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,087.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Ma-honey, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 12, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action of forcible detainer by Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Company, plaintiff, against Nicholas Govostis, defendant. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

Defendant occupied the premises under a written lease dated November 15, 1913, conditioned to expire May 31, 1914, “unless said term is sooner terminated by notice from said party of the first part, as hereinafter provided.” Upon the expiration of the lease by its terms, the same was continued in force by a memorandum agreement until December 31, 1914. The lease provided that the same might be terminated by the landlord at any time before the expiration of the term reserved by giving to the tenant five days’ notice in writing, and upon the service of such notice the tenant agreed to yield up immediate possession of the premises. On September 28,1914, the plaintiff served on the defendant the following notice:

“In pursuance of the provisions in a certain lease dated the 15th day of November, 1913, between the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Company and yourself, the terms and provisions of which were continued in force to December 31, 1914, after the termination of said lease on May 31, 1914, by a certain other memorandum of agreement, dated the 1st day of July, 1914, you are hereby notified that the said Railway Company hereby elects to determine said *452lease at the expiration of five (5) days from the date hereof. '

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Forcible entry and detainer, § 31 * —when demand for possession not necessary to maintenance of forcible detainer. Demand for possession of premises before bringing an action of forcible detainer against a tenant holding over is not necessary.

2. Landlord and tenant, § 474*—when notice to quit sufficient. Notice by landlord of termination of lease, not describing the premises but designating the lease under which they are occupied, held sufficient.

“You are further notified- to quit and deliver up possession of the premises described in said lease to this company on or before the 4th day of October, 1914.”

The defendant having refused to surrender possession as demanded, this suit was brought and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff resulted.

Thomas E. Swanson and Richard J. Cooney, for plaintiff in error.

Addison L. Gardner and Erwin W. Roemer, for defendant in error.

*

See lUinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.