JUDGMENT Khare, J. - This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th December, 1962 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Pratapgrah. The suit was for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of house No. 275/1, situate in mohalla Mackendrawganj Chowk, Pratapgrah. It was filed after having obtained the permission of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to evict the tenants, namely, Abdul Rehman and his son Abdul Mannan. 2. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit both for ejectment and arrears of rent. The plea taken by the defendants that no notice had been given under section 106, Transfer of Property Act, was not accepted. 3. The defendants preferred an appeal, and the only point pressed was that no notice had been served on the defendants in respect of the shop in question. The learned Civil Judge noticed that there had occurred an in-advertent mistake in the notice duly served inasmuch as the number of the shop had been mentioned as 75/1' instead of 275/1'. However from a perusal of the notice itself the defendants could have come to the conclusion that it was in respect of shop No. 275/1 belonging to the plaintiff and not in respect of shop No. 75/1 situate in a different mohalla The learned Civil Judge held that such notices should be liberally construed and should not be declared to be invalid on technical grounds. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. 4. Before me in second appeal the only point which has been urged is that the permission had been obtained in respect of shop No. 275/1 while the notice had been given in respect of shop no. 75/1 and, therefore, it was not a valid notice and the defendants were not liable to ejectment. 5. It is true that in the notice which was given to both the defendants and duly served on them the number of the shop mentioned as 75/1' and not as 275/1, which is the correct number. However, that appears to be an in-advertent mistake, as observed by the lower appellate court because the mohalla of the shop and its rent had been correctly mentioned in that notice. However, that appears to be an in-advertent mistake, as observed by the lower appellate court because the mohalla of the shop and its rent had been correctly mentioned in that notice. It was also correctly mentioned in that notice that both the defendants were the tenants of that shop and that the permission had been obtained from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in respect of that shop to eject the tenants. After having given all those details in the notice under section 106, Transfer of Property Act, the defendants could not have been in any doubt regarding the shop in respect of which the notice had been given. 6. It was held in the case of Harihar Banerji and others v. Ramshashi Roy and others, AIR 1918 P.C. 102 , that notices to quit, though not strictly accurate or consistent in the statement embodied in them, may still be good and effective in law that the test of their sufficiency is, not what they would mean to a stranger ignorant of all the facts and circumstances touching the holding to which they purport to refer, but what they would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances and further, that they are to be construed not with a desire to find faults in them which would render them defective but to be canstrued ut res magis valeat quam pereat. 7. The facts and circumstances of the present case are such that after having read the notices which were given to the defendants they could not be in doubt regarding the property in respect of which the notices were given. 8. It is significant to note that in the written statement filed by the defendants they admitted that they were the tenants of shop No. 275/1. They raised the contention that the plaintiffs did not need that shop for his own pur-poses. They did not specifically raise the plea that the plaintiff owned another shop whose number was 75/1 and which was with the defendants as its tenants. That matter was introduced by Abdul Rehman for the first time when he entered the witness box. They raised the contention that the plaintiffs did not need that shop for his own pur-poses. They did not specifically raise the plea that the plaintiff owned another shop whose number was 75/1 and which was with the defendants as its tenants. That matter was introduced by Abdul Rehman for the first time when he entered the witness box. It must have been purposely done with a view to render the notice given to the defendants invalid because it might have occurred to him as a result of a second thought that due to an advertent mistake the notice has been given in respect of shop No. 75/1 and not in respect of shop No. 275/1. It is clear from a perusal of the written statement itself that the said mistake must have been detected after the written statement had been filed. The court below was perfectly justified in not placing any reliance on a statement of the defendant which must be the result of an after-thought. 9. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs. 10. One month's time from the date of this order is allowed to the appellants to vacate the shop in question.