3 he will be deemed to have admitted that claim or relief in the statement of claim.” I will digress a little to attend to the written address filed by Mr. Ataguba S. Aboje for the defendant. As I said earlier, the defendant never formally entered appearance nor file his defence. However, Mr. Aboje apparently oblivious to the fact that by motion on notice no. m/14293/12, the Plaintiff moved the court for leave to amend the originating process by substituting the name of the Plaintiff from Edith Onwuchekwa to Mega–Net Associates Ltd and the court granted the prayer as sought, the learned counsel still laboured to question the Plaintiff’s competence. That amendment was the reason why I lifted the claim as contained in the amended statement of claim which I reproduced in the early part of this judgment. The venture of the learned counsel in the approach as he did therefore, served no useful purpose. So much for the address and the issue raised. The Plaintiff went ahead and led evidence on his pleaded facts. By Exhibit PW1‘B’ the tenancy expired on the 29th of March, 2011. There is no evidence that the tenancy was renewed and he did not vacate the premises up to the end of April, 2012. The defendant’s status after the tenancy had expired by affluxion of time became that of a tenant at will paying rent and what is required of the Plaintiff therefore, is the service of the notice of owner’s intention to apply to recover possession known as the 7 days notice. The Plaintiff had complied with this legal requirement by serving Exhibit PW1‘C’ on the defendant. I note that the claim is referred to as arrears of rent. In the instant case, the tenancy had expired. What the Plaintiff is