Judgment :- 1. This is a tenant's revision; and the controversy lies within a narrow compass. 2. An order of eviction has been passed against the revision petitioner-tenant on the ground of sub-letting of the premises by the tenant to the 2nd respondent in the rent control petition. The sub-lease alleged by the landlord has been concurrently found by the authorities below, and as far as I could see there has not been any wrong appreciation of evidence in coming to that conclusion. On going through the evidence in the case I am also satisfied that there was sub-letting as alleged by the landlord for the purpose of S.11 (4) (i) of Act 2 of 1965. 3. The only contention raised by the revision petitioner-tenant is that there is no compliance with the proviso to S.11 (4) (i) of the Act.1 may read the proviso: "Provided that an application under this clause shall not be made for the first time in respect of one and the same tenancy unless the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and the tenant has failed to terminate the transfer or the sub-lease, as the case may be within thirty days of the receipt of the notice or the refusal thereof." The question is whether Ext. A3 notice issued by the landlord satisfies the requirements of the proviso. In Ext. A3 it is distinctly alleged that the tenant has sub-let the premises to one T. S. Subramanyam and that the tenant must terminate that arrangement and inform the landlord within 15 days. The defect in Ext. A3 pointed out by the revision petitioner is that in view of the wording of the proviso the tenant is entitled to 30 days' clear notice, and in Ext. A3 only 15 days' notice is contemplated. The proviso, broadly speaking, consists of two parts. The first part provides that before an application is laid under S.11 (4) (i) of the Act the landlord must have sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease. The first part thus explains the statutory duty on the part of the landlord. The second part provides that the tenant must terminate the transfer or the sublease, as the case may be, within 30 days of the notice or the refusal thereof. The first part thus explains the statutory duty on the part of the landlord. The second part provides that the tenant must terminate the transfer or the sublease, as the case may be, within 30 days of the notice or the refusal thereof. That part thus deals with the statutory obligation of the tenant. The 30 days referred to in the proviso has thus no application to that part of the proviso which prescribes the statutory obligation on the part of the landlord. The period mentioned in the proviso is intended to confer on the tenant a statutory period within which he could rectify the breach of contract committed by him in that respect. It may be advantageous in this connection to refer to S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy." From the wording of that provision it is clear that the time limit is associated with the notice, whereas in the proviso extracted above there is no connecting link between the notice and the time limit prescribed in the second part.1 am not prepared to read into the proviso any intention on the part of the legislature to direct the landlord to give 30 days' notice to the tenant. The fact that Ext. A3 referred to 15 days cannot affect the validity of the notice because no time limit is prescribed by the first part of the proviso. Ext. A3 was issued on 6111973 and the eviction proceedings were initiated only on 6 31974 long after the expiry of the 30 days time limit prescribed by the second part of the proviso. I do not forget that the two conditions made mention of in the proviso are cumulative. Ext. A3 was issued on 6111973 and the eviction proceedings were initiated only on 6 31974 long after the expiry of the 30 days time limit prescribed by the second part of the proviso. I do not forget that the two conditions made mention of in the proviso are cumulative. But that aspect has little bearing regarding the question whether the landlord's notice should fix a time limit. It follows, therefore that the proviso has been complied with in the instant case, and the eviction proceedings do not suffer from any infirmity on that account. I confirm the order passed by the revisional authority and dismiss this revision. No costs. The revision petitioner-tenant is granted three weeks' time to vacate the premises. Dismissed.