Judgment S.Sarwar Ali, J. 1. This second appeal is by the tenants who were defendants in the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises. The suit has been decreed by the two Courts below. In this second appeal, the only question raised on behalf of the appellants by Mr. Sudhir Chandra Ghose is regarding the validity of the notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was admittedly served on the defendants. It is not in dispute that the tenancy is a monthly tenancy according to the English calendar month. The notice in this case which was sent on the 6th March 1965, required the defendants to vacate the premises in question on the expiration of the 31st March 1965 or at the expiration of the month of your tenancy which shall expire next after the end of the month of the tenancy from the service of this notice. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that a notice couched in the language quoted above was vague and as such it was not a valid and legal notice in the eye of law. There cannot be any doubt that if a notice is vague it cannot be held to be a good notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. What therefore has to be seen is whether the relevant portion of the notice in question as already quoted above is vague. The question whether a notice is vague depends on what upon its fair and reasonable construction the document means is the tenant left by its terms in any doubt as to its intended effect. In my view, where a notice to vacate the premises gives a date which according to the plaintiff is the date of the expiry of the monthly tenancy, and when it also gives an alternative date which is either earlier or later, it cannot be said that the notice is vague or indefinite or incapable of being understood. What the landlord says in the notice is that he terminates the tenancy as from the specified date, but gives an option to the tenant to vacate on a later date as given in the notice, (this date must also fulfill the requirement of Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act). What the landlord says in the notice is that he terminates the tenancy as from the specified date, but gives an option to the tenant to vacate on a later date as given in the notice, (this date must also fulfill the requirement of Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act). Similar questions have been considered by several High Courts including our own High Court. I propose to notice some of the decisions in the succeeding paragraph. 4. In the case of Shanker Ram V/s. Tulsi Bhagat, AIR 1921 Pat 307, the notice required the defendants to vacate the house at the end of the month of Asarah 1324 F.N. or such date of the month on which the defendants thought their monthly tenancy ended. A contention was raised that the notice was invalid and illegal. Dealing with the contention, Jwala Prasad, J. observed:- - "The second contention also seems to be unsubstantial, inasmuch as the notice has given more than 15 days" time to quit and further has given the defendants option to quit on a later date, in case the defendants thought that their monthly tenancy ended on such a date. The notice is not at all uncertain, for the date for vacating the house has been clearly and definitely fixed in the notice by the plaintiff. It is only to avoid any doubt or dispute that an option of the nature set forth in the notice was given to the defendants. It was for their benefit. They cannot dispute the notice on the score of uncertainty. This contention also must be overruled." 5. In AIR 1949 All 173 (Ganga Prasad V/s. Prem Kumar Kohli) the notice required the defendants to vacate the premises on the 18th May, 1944, or on such date as "your then current month of tenancy will end". It was found that the tenancy commenced from the 1st of every English month. In those circumstances, it was held that "the defendants well understood what was meant by the notice, namely, that he was called upon to vacate only on the termination of the month of tenancy and that he was not required to vacate on 18th May, 1944, if the month of tenancy did not terminate on that day and that the notice, therefore was proper." 6. In the case of Jatindra Nath V/s. Malai Ram Show, AIR 1953 Cal 352 a notice was given to the tenant to vacate and deliver possession over two rooms with the end of 31-7-1945 or at the end of a month of the tenancy which could expire next after the fifteen days from the receipt of the said notice. The notice in this case was also held to be a good notice and was held to be neither vague nor insufficient. On the other hand, it was held that by this notice the defendants tenancy had been duly determined. 7. Similar is the view expressed in AIR 1961 Raj 136, (Mohan Lal V/s. Vijay Narain) where reliance has been placed on the Allahabad and the Patna cases referred to above as also two other cases. 8. I may at this stage refer to a passage from Mullas Transfer of Property Act, 5th Edition, at page 670, which has been mentioned in the Allahabad and Calcutta cases. The learned author observed: "It is usual after mentioning the date of the anniversary of the tenancy to add, in the alternative, some general words as "at the end of the year of the tenancy which will expire next after the end of one-half year from the date of the service of this notice." That passage (which first appeared in the 1st Edition of the Book and has been repeated thereafter in subsequent edition) suggests that demand for possession in the alternative form is perfectly valid and well recognised in law. 9. In fact the alternative form of notice may be necessary for two reasons. Firstly, in some case, the service of notice (if sent by registered post) may be unduly delayed without any fault on the part of the landlord, and, when it actually reaches the tenant it may fall short of the statutory period of notice. The alternative form of notice is a safeguard against such an eventuality. Secondly, the tenant may raise a dispute (in some cases unjustifiably) as to the date on which the monthly or yearly tenancy terminates. By giving the option to the tenant to act upon what he deems to be the date of expiry of the tenancy is to prevent unnecessary and avoidable controversy. Secondly, the tenant may raise a dispute (in some cases unjustifiably) as to the date on which the monthly or yearly tenancy terminates. By giving the option to the tenant to act upon what he deems to be the date of expiry of the tenancy is to prevent unnecessary and avoidable controversy. To recoginse the validity of notice in the alternative will be in accord with justice, make good sense, and in my view, is good law as well. 10. Notice to quit in alternative form is well recognised in English law. It was observed by A. L. Smith, L. J. in Sidebotham V/s. Holland, (1895) 1 QB 378 at p. 389: "I would point out that the plaintiff has only himself to blame for the difficulties he has in this case. Had he added the words which are ordinarily inserted in a notice to quit, "or at the expiration of the year of your tenancy, which shall expire next after the end of one half-year from the service of notice," and which are inserted to avoid such a point as that now taken, all would have been in order." In Doe V/s. Smith, (1836) III ER 1198, notice asking the tenant to quit the land building "at the expiration of half a year from the delivery or this notice or at such other time or times, as your present years holding of or in the premises.... shall expire after the expiration of half a year from the delivery of this notice.", was held to be a good notice. In Crate V/s. Miller, (1947) 2 All ER 45 a tenant occupied a furnished room on a weekly tenancy commencing on a Saturday, A notice to quit dated 5th July, 1946 (which was a Friday) "was given in the following terms", we hereby give your notice that the landlord will terminate your tenancy on Friday, July 19, 1946 or at the end of the next complete week of your tenancy from the date hereof, on which date you are hereby required to quit and deliver up possession". In this case the latter part of the notice was held to be bad as it gave one weeks notice from the date of issue and not the service of notice, but it was not even suggested that the notice could not be in the alternative. In this case the latter part of the notice was held to be bad as it gave one weeks notice from the date of issue and not the service of notice, but it was not even suggested that the notice could not be in the alternative. 11 I may also refer to a decision in the case of Dagger V/s. Shepherd, 1946 KB 215. In that case the landlord gave a notice to the tenant to quit on or before a fixed date. This notice was held to be a valid and effective notice. 12. In my view the question is really one of interpretation. Reading the notice in a reasonable manner, it appears to me that so far as the landlord is concerned he had stated his position unambiguously and thereby taken the step of finally putting an end to the tenancy. Both the alternative dates given in the notice are definite. There is no vagueness. There is no ambiguity. The notice must be held to be a good notice. 13. The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants was that the notice terminates the tenancy as from the date of notice and not on expiry of 15 days as is required in law. I cannot read the notice in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the appellants. It is clear that the notice did not purport to bring about the end of the relationship of landlord and tenant on the date of notice. There is thus no infirmity in the notice as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. I do not find any error of law in the judgments of the Courts below. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in this second appeal, which is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.