( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the landlords suit for his ejectment. The plaintiff-landlord alleged that the defendants did not pay rent for several months in spite of service of a notice of demand and the plaintiff thereupon filed this suit after terminating their tenancy. The defendants denied that any notice of demand has been served on them and also challenged the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy. Both the Courts below held that the defendants had refused the notice of demand and that the notice terminating the tenancy was valid. The defendants have come to this Court in second appeal.

( 2 ) MR. K. C. Saksena learned counsel for the appellant urged the following arguments in support of this appeal. First he contended that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property act terminating the tenancy was invalid as it asked the tenants to vacate "within 30 days" instead of giving what learned counsel called a clear one months notice. According to learned counsel, within thirty days means less than thirty days. I do not agree. There is no difference between a notice asking a