Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—In this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 the only question which has been raised for consideration by the parties is as to the validity of the notice dated 27.8.2005 by which the lease/tenancy is said to have been determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

2. The suit of the landlady against the tenant for his eviction and for recovery of certain rent due has been decreed by the Small Cause Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.8.2012.

3. The Court below in deciding issue No. 3, held the notice to be valid and duly served. A finding has also been returned that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the said shop and that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. 14.2.2005.

4. I have heard Sri J.J.Munir, learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents.

5. In view of the involvement of the above question only, they have agreed for final disposal of the revision on the basis of the impugned judgment and order itself and the copy of the notice which has been annexed with the stay application.

6. The submission of Sri Munir is that the aforesaid notice does not determine the tenancy and is invalid as it does not specify the time from which the tenancy, if at all, stands determined.

7. Sri Pankaj Agarwal on the other hand, submits that may be the notice is not very happily worded but the fact remains that the intention of the landlady therein is clear that she wans the tenant to vacate the shop on the expiry of the statutory period required to be mentioned in the notice.

8. The Court below in view of the fact that the notice demands arrears of rent and requires the tenant to vacate the premises held that the notice is not invalid as the notice is to be construed liberally and not with an eye to find fault with it.

9. The notice paper No. 10 Ga has been filed as Annexure - 1 to the stay application. Its contents are not disputed. The notice reads as under:

“uksfVl feutkfuc% Jherh dkUrh nsoh iRuh Lo0 Jh dSyk’k pUnz caly] fuoklh iRFkj cktkj] rglhy dksy] vyhx<+ }kjk mn;ohj flag pkSèkjh ,M0 xsV ua0 2 flfoy dksVZ vyhx<+A

cuke

Jherh jsuw xqIrk iRuh Jh jktho xqIrk] fuoklh e0ua0 33@267 Mk0 'kqDyk okyh xyh] gkse xkMZ vkfQl ds lkeus jke?kkV jksM] vyhx<+A

uksfVl varxZr /kkjk% 80 lh0 ih0 lh0

fgnk;r vkidks vkxkg fd;k tkrk gS fd esjh eqofDdyk ds funsZ’kkuqlkj vki esjh eqofDdyk ds nqdku ua0&7 esa :0 700@& izfrekg fdjk;snkj fnukad 13-11-96 ls cgSfl;r gS vkSj vkius esjh eqofDdyk dks mDr nqdku dk fdjk;k fnukad 13-2-2000 rd dk fn;k gSA ftldh fd vkidks jlhn Hkh nh x;h gSA vc vkius fnukad 14-2-2000 ls 1-9-2005 rd dk fdjk;k :046200@rFkk tydj vkfn dk 350@& :i;s dqy 46650@& :i;s dks vnk ugha fd;k gSA bl izdkj ls vki dkuwuu rjhds ls Lor% gh csn[ky gks tkrh gSA vkils esjh eqofDdyk us mDr ekgksa ds fdjk;s ds fy, dbZ ckj ekaxs dh gSa ysfdu vkius nqdku dk fdjk;k esjh eqofDdyk dks vnk ugha fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkidks vkxkg fd;k tkrk gS fd vki esjh eqofDdyk dh mDr nqdku dks [kkyh dj nsa vU;Fkk dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ds fy, esjh eqofDdyk dks ck/; gksuk iM+sxkA

var esa vkidks bl uksfVl ds vk/kkj ij vkxkg fd;k tkrk gS fd vki esjh eqofDdyk ds nqdku ds fdjk;s fnukad 14-2-2000 ls 1-9-2005 rd dk fdjk;k o dj vkfn dqy eqofyx :046]650@& dk o odhy lkgc dh Qhl uksfVl 250@& :i;s dk le; ds vanj Hkqxrku dj ns vU;Fkk vkids fo:) dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djuh iM+h rks vkids leLr gtZs o [kpsZ dh ftEesnkjh gksxhA

fnukad % 27-8-2005

uksfVl nsfgUnk

Jherh dkUrh nsoh ¼1½ }kjk mn;ohj flag pkS/kjh ,MoksdsV flfoy dksVZ] vyhx<+A**

10. A plain reading of the aforesaid notice reveals that it requires the tenant to pay the rent for the period 14.2.2000 to 9.1.2005 amounting to Rs. 46,200/- and to vacate the shop, but it fails to specify the exact date from which the tenancy would stand determined.

11. A combined reading of Sections 106 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that in t