JUDGMENT H.C. Mital, J. - This is a tenant's revision against the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1991 regarding recovery of Rs. 2730/- and eviction of the revisionist from the accommodation in suit and payment of Rs. 65 per month as damages for use and occupation till the accommodation is vacated. 2. Admittedly, the revisionist has been a tenant of the shop in the suit, situate in Mohalla Station Road, Mirzapur, at a monthly rent of Rs. 75. According to the plaintiff, an amount Rs. 4537.50 became due from July, 1982 to 15th July, 1987 which he failed to pay in spite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy. 3. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that he had paid the arrears of rent till November, 1986 and that subsequently he deposited rent in Court under section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and that the notice to quit was illegal and his tenancy has not been determined in accordance with law. 4. The learned Judge of the Court below, however, believed the plaintiff's evidence and disbelieved the defence version, hence he passed the impugned decree. In this revision only three points have been raised, firstly that no notice of termination of tenancy as provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and lastly that the learned Court below has wrongly disbelieved the defence version regarding payment of rent till November, 1986. 5. The notice to quit admittedly was addressed to the defendant - revisionist but it was sent through his Counsel Shri Shah Nisar Ahmad, Advocate, Civil Court, Mizapur, through whom he had earlier given reply to the previous notice of the plaintiff. The defendant has admitted receipt of that notice in his written statement and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had not received the notice. The notice was served on him through his own Counsel Shri Shah Nisar Ahmad and, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice was not served in accordance with law. Moreover, once the service of notice is admitted it is immaterial as to how it was served. Hence, there is no force in this contention that the notice was not served on the defendant in the manner as provided in law. 6. As regards the validity of the notice, it clearly contains the following words :- "Kirayedar Nahi rakhna chahta. Moreover, once the service of notice is admitted it is immaterial as to how it was served. Hence, there is no force in this contention that the notice was not served on the defendant in the manner as provided in law. 6. As regards the validity of the notice, it clearly contains the following words :- "Kirayedar Nahi rakhna chahta. Uski kirayedari smarat kee jati hai.........Jumla kirya Rs. 4537.50 may Rs. 30 kharcha jorh notice jumla mublig Rs. 4577.50 jbab notice prapt karne se Ek Maha ke andar ada va bebak kar deveh evam kirayedari me 30 deen tak rakhkar useh khali karke kabza dakhal mavakil ham jbab dehenda ko pradan kar deveh." 7. From the above it is clear that tenancy was terminated by giving 30 days time from the date of receipt of the notice to vacate the premises. 8. That apart the law is well settled that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not to be minutely construed but actually the notice should contain the clear intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy and should give the period of one month to the tenant to vacate the tenanted accommodation. Hence, the present notice also cannot be said to be invalid and there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel that the same was not in accordance with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. Lastly, as regards the finding of the learned Court below believing the plaintiff's case that the tenant revisionist had not paid the rent as alleged by him but the receipt was prima facie tampered with and he believed the plaintiff's statement on oath and the counter-foil, it being a finding of fact is not open to be questioned in the revision as the revisioning authority has no jurisdiction to correct a finding of fact by reappraisal of evidence. The conclusion, therefore, is that there is no force in the revision and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. The stay order stands vacated.