Judgement JUDGMENT.:- The only point that is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second appeal is that the notice to quit given by the plaintiff (respondent) after termination of the tenancy was not in accordance with law and that therefore the suit is not maintainable. 2. The tenancy is in respect of a vacant site and it was a monthly tenancy, the monthly rent being Rs. 40. The tenancy commenced on 1st June, 1959. The plaintiff issued a notice on 7-11-1969 terminating the tenancy. It is stated in this notice that the tenant should vacate the property and give possession within the end of the month. It also called upon the tenant to "vacate and surrender possession of the property on 30th November 1969." 3. The question for consideration is whether this notice complies with the provisions of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act? 4. That section requires the notice to expire with the end of the month of the tenancy. According to the learned counsel, requiring to vacate and surrender possession of the property on the 30th of November does not satisfy the requirement of S. 106 of the T. P. Act : 5. In Gnanaprakasam Pillai v. Vaz, 60 Mad LJ 293 : (AIR 1931 Mad 352), this court had to consider whether a notice given on 15th Sept. 1930 to vacate and deliver possession on the forenoon of the 1st of October was valid in the case of a monthly tenancy. This court held that the notice to quit was a good notice. In the course of that judgment, the learned Judge referred to Sidebotham v. Holland, (1895) 1 QB 378 wherein the Privy Council held that the notice requiring to quit on the last day of the expiry of the tenancy as also on the succeeding date was valid. That means the notice to vacate and deliver possession on the 30th Nov., or the 1st December would both be valid. In the first instance, it would be a case of notice to quit on the last moment of the day and in the case of succeeding day, the notice to quit is at the first moment of the day. So, in whichever way the notice is issued, it would be valid. In the first instance, it would be a case of notice to quit on the last moment of the day and in the case of succeeding day, the notice to quit is at the first moment of the day. So, in whichever way the notice is issued, it would be valid. It would not be valid only if the tenant is asked to vacate before the last date of the tenancy, i. e., before the 30th November in this case. This decision was followed in Muthukrishna Reddiar v. Ponnusami Naicker, 1966-1 Mad LJ 71. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice a decision of Ramaprasada Rao J. in C. R. P. No. 1516 of 1972 (Mad), (Karuppan v. Rangaswami Naidu). Though the learned Judge discussed only this point, it was only an obiter dictum as the tenant in that case had purchased the property itself and there was no need for him to vacate. Even so, that was a case where the tenant was asked to vacate and deliver possession on or before 31st December 1970, and the learned Judge considered whether the request to deliver possession before 31st December 1970 would be in order and held that it would not be in order. It is not necessary for me in this case to consider this question as no such expression is used in this case. The tenant was asked to deliver possession on the 30th Nov., which would be at the last moment of the day as pointed out by the Privy Council in Sidebotham v. Holland, 1895-1 QB 378. The notice is, therefore, in order. 7. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. The tenant is given time to vacate the property and deliver possession within three months from this date.