JUDGMENT Bellie, J. 1. The only question raised in this second appeal is whether the notice of termination of tenancy sent by the plaintiff-landlord to the defendant-tenant is valid in law. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff, the respondent herein, for eviction against the defendant, appellant herein, has been decreed by the trial court (District Munsif, Manamadurai) and that has been confirmed by the appellate Court (Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga). 3. It is argued by Mr. R. Arunagirinathan, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant that the tenancy is a monthly one and it corresponds to English calendar month, and the termination of the tenancy notice Ex.A2 dated 28.11.1984 is not in accordance with the prescription in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore it is invalid and hence the suit which has been filed on the basis of that notice is not sustainable and thus the suit should have been dismissed. 4. It is not disputed that the tenancy is a monthly one and even in the tenancy agreement Ex.A1, dated 15.3.1981 as well as in the plaint it is averred that the tenancy is a monthly one and it corresponds to the English calendar month. Therefore under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the tenancy termination notice should have been given giving the tenant 15 days' time and terminating the tenancy by the end of the tenancy month. The relevant portion in Ex.A2 notice of termination reads in Tamil thus: Apart from this nothing else is mentioned in the notice regarding termination of tenancy. Thus there is no specific recital stating that on which date the tenancy is terminated. What all the recital states is that the tenant shall vacate the premises before 5.1.1985 and hand over possession to the landlord. If this can be taken as notice of termination then it is only possible to hold that the landlord has terminated the tenancy by 5.1.1985. As we have seen above, as per Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the tenancy must be terminated by the end of a month. But as per Ex.A2 tenancy is terminated much before the end of the month i.e., on 5.1.85. This by no means can be said to be proper and valid notice of termination given as prescribed in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. Mr. But as per Ex.A2 tenancy is terminated much before the end of the month i.e., on 5.1.85. This by no means can be said to be proper and valid notice of termination given as prescribed in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff however submits that a reading of the recital would show that the landlord meant to terminate the tenancy by the end of December, 1984 but he has given some grace time to vacate. But I am afraid I cannot agree with it. We cannot construe the notice in that way. The notice must be clearly understandable as to by what date the landlord has terminated the tenancy. In my view the only construction that can be given to the said recital in the notice is that the landlord wanted to terminate the tenancy only on 5.1.1985. 6. Mr. R. Aninagirinathan, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant cited a Supreme Court decision in Bhagabandas Agarwalla v. Bhagwandas Kanu and Ors. wherein it is observed that: It is indisputable that under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the notice to quit must expire with the end of the month of the tenancy, or in other words, it must terminate the tenancy with effect from the expiration of the month of the tenancy. If it terminates the tenancy with effect from an earlier date, it would be clearly invalid. Considering these I hold that Ex.A2 notice of termination of tenancy is invalid and therefore the suit is not sustainable. Consequently, in the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court are set aside and the suit is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout.