JUDGMENT

S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the landlord's suit for his ejectment. The appellant Tikkam Ram was the tenant of a shop in Aligarh of which the respondent Prakash Chandra is the owner and landlord. The agreed rent was Rs. 10/- per month. The respondent alleged in his plaint that the appellant fall into arrears of rent and a sum of Rs. 80/- became due from him as ten months rent. He served on the appellant a combined notice of demand and termination of tenancy but the appellant did not pay up; hence the suit. The appellant resisted the suit and denied that he had committed any default. He also denied having received any notice and alleged that the respondent procured a fictitious endorsement "refused" in collusion with the postman. He also alleged that the notice could not have been served on him, as at the time he was away on a visit to his brother-in-law in Gunah, Bihar. He also contended that the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid as it did not expressly state that the tenancy was being terminated, and also because a material alteration had been made in the notice after it was returned to the respondent with the fiictitious endorsement "refused." He alleged that the words "ap ki kirayadari samapt ki jati hai" were interpolated by the respondent after the notice was returned to him by the post office.

2. Both the Courts below completely disbelieved the appellant's version. They held that he had committed default in the payment of rent and had refused the notice of demand which was served on him personally by the postman. They also rejected his evidence that he was out of station when the notice was served on him. They believed the postman who had testified that he tendered the registered notice to the appellant but he refused it. They also held that the respondent had not made any alteration in the notice. They also rejected the appellant's plea that the notice was invalid because it did not use the express words, "the tenancy is terminated."

3. In second appeal, Mr. B. L. Chaturvedi argued that the respondent's suit should have been dismissed because his plaint did not aver that he had terminated the tenancy before filing the suit for ejectment. Counsel argued that without such an averment a suit for ejectment by the landlord must be dismissed as incompetent. The short answer to this argument is that the plaint does contain this averment. In para. 4, the respondent alleged that he had served a notice on the appellant that the tenancy was no longer acceptable to him and had further demanded (in the notice) that the appellant should vacate the premises on the expiry of 30 days from the service of notice. Mr. Chaturvedi contended that this was not enough, and the notice should have expressly stated that the tenancy was being terminated. I cannot agree. No particular words have been prescribed under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended by the U.P. Legislature, which merely provides that "a lease .... shall be terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by one month's notice." Sec. 111 (h) of the same Act provides that "a lease of immovable property determines . . (h) on the expiry of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to another."

4. D. F. Mulla in his commentary on the Transfer of Property Act, 4th edition, has observed, ". . . . the notice to quit must indicate in substance and with reasonable clarity an intention on the part of the person giving it to determine the existing tenancy at a certain time." (p. 619). The same author has observed, "a liberal construction is therefore put on a notice to quit in order that it should not be defeated by inaccuracies either in the description of the premises or the name of the tenant, or the date of expiry of notice. The author's observation is based on authorities cited in the footnote on this