JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Lal, J. - This second appeal filed by the defendant arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in the court of Munsif North, Lucknow. The premises to which the suit related are governed by the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had committed default in payment of arrears of rent due from him for more than three months which be did not pay within one month of the service upon him of a notice.of demand under section 3 (l)(a) of the said Act. The plaintiffs gave a notice to the defendant on 10-7-1962 which was served on him on 19-7-1562 asking him to vacate the accommodation in a month's period failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against him. When the defendant failed to comply with the notice, a suit for recovery of rent and ejectment was instituted against him on 10.11.1962. The defendant contested the suit.

2. The learned Munsif held that the defendant had committed default within the meaning of section 3(11(a) of the Act but he was of the opinion that the notice sent by the plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements of law as contained in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment and granted them a decree for arrears or rent only.

3. In appeal the learned Civil Judge while agreeing with the trial court that the defendant was in default found that the notice under section 106 was a valid notice. He, therefore. passed a decree for ejectment also. The defendant has now filed this second appeal.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the notice sent under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act was not a valid notice and that the defendant had not committed any default so as to make him liable to ejectment under section 3(1)(a).

5. The notice dated 10-7-1962 which was received by the defendant on 19-7-1962 is Exhibit 1. In that notice the plaintiffs after mentioning that a sum of Rs. 125/- was due by the defendant on account of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month up to June, 1962, stated as follows :

"That you are called upon to pay the accrued arrears of rent within a month.

That we want you to vacate the said accommodation and deliver its vacant possession to us.

That you are called upon to vacate the said accommodation in a month's period.

That in default we shall be compelled to file a suit for arrears of rent as well as for ejectment at your risk and expenses."

6. The learned counsel for appellant contended that the notice does not in terms determine the tenancy of the defendant and as such it is not a valid notice. In this connection he referred to a decision of this court in Bradly v. Atkinson, VII I.L.B. (Allahabad) 899. In that case the tenancy of the defendant was from month to month according to English calendar. The landlord gave him a notice dated 11th December, 1882 in the following terms :

"If the roams you occupy in the house No. 5, Thornhill Road, are not vacated within a month from this date, I will file a suit against you for ejectment, as well as for recovery of rent due at the enhanced rate."

Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as it stood at that time, provided that a lease of immovable property from month to month was terminable by 15 days' notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy. In the notice, as produced above the landlord had required the tenant to vacate the premises within a month from the date of the notice which was 11-12-1882. It was, therefore, obvious that he did not give him a notice as contemplated by section 106 so as to determine his tenancy by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. This notice interms gave option to the tenant to continue to occupy the premises as a tenant, if he so liked, upto 10-1-1883 and he could quit them o