JUDGMENT : This is an appeal by the defendant against whom a decree for ejectment from a house situate in the city of Agra and for recovery of arrears of rent has been passed. The only point which calls for determination in this appeal is whether the so-called notice to quit or termination of tenancy sent by the plaintiff-respondents, the landlord, and served upon the defendant-appellant, the tenant, was valid and effective within the meaning of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be mentioned that the findings of fact recorded against the defendant-appellant on the question of the arrears due, the amount of arrears due and the default in complying with the notice calling upon him to pay up the arrears have not been challenged in this second appeal. It is clear, therefore, that if the appellant succeeds in establishing that the notice was not an effective notice under S. 106, the only consequence would be that the suit of the plaintiffs as far as the ejectment of the defendant is concerned, would stand dismissed and the decree of the Court below would be modified to that extent only.

2. In order to appreciate the submissions made at the Bar in regard to the validity of the notice as an effective notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is necessary to reproduce the notice, a copy of which is paper No. 18-C on the record having been admitted in evidence duly proved as a true copy of the original notice sent to the defendant by the plaintiffs :

"From the office of : Johri Bazar, Agra,

Jetnanand Advocate. D/- 23-12-1939.

To

Shri Chhida Ram son of Nand Kishore,

R/o H. No. 4979 Dhuliaganj, Agra.

Dear Sir,

Under instructions and on behalf of my clients, M/s. Naru Mal son of Guloo Mal and Bahru Mal son of Chhugo Mal residents of Shahganj Agra please take notice;

1. That whereas you are in occupation of one Big Kamra on the ground floor at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month.

2. That whereas you are a bad pay master in respect of the rent and have not paid the rent since 1-8-1951 despite repeated demands made in this behalf.

3. And that whereas you insult, annoy and intimidate my clients whenever they demand the rent from you and have constituted a nuisance in the premises.

This is therefore to call upon you please to vacate the premises in your occupation on the expiry of the 30th day of the receipt of this notice and also please remit my client the amount of rent due till then along with Rs. 3/50 nP. as the costs of this notice failing which I have instructions to proceed legally in the matter at your risk as to costs and consequences which please note.

Also please note that the rent that you are paying is absolutely insufficient and inadequate and taking in consideration the accommodation the rent prevailing in the locality for similar accommodation and all other facts the most fair rent of the premises cannot be less than Rs. 8/- per month and you are required to pay rent at the said rate with effect from 1st Jan. 1960 failing which I have instructions to take legal action in this respect as well.

yours faithfully,

Sd. Jethanand

Advocate."

Swami Dayal, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, submitted that the requirement of the law is that the notice terminating the tenancy or to quit must be fair, unambiguous and unequivocal showing an absolute intention on the part of the landlord terminating the tenancy at the expiry of thirty days from the receipt of the notice and contended that the notice in question did not fulfil any of those requirements. The learned counsel characterised the notice as ambiguous, equivocal and showing an intention on the part of the landlord to continue the tenancy on an enhanced rent. On the evidence on the record it had been proved that the not