JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Mount Abu dated December 15, 1993 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif, Abu Road dated February 6, 1988, decreeing the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment. The facts of the case giving rise to this second appeal may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment.of the defendant with the averment that the defendant is in occupation and possession of the suit shop situated in the town of Saroopganj on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and he has not vacated it despite terminating his tenancy through a notice. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that his tenancy has not validly been terminated and the suit has been filed to put pressure on him to enhance the rent. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court decreed the suit holding that the tenancy of the defendant has validly been terminated. The defendant preferred an appeal and it was dismissed as said. above. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the defendant was inducted in the suit shop as a tenant by the plaintiff's father above 40 years' ago, the plaintiff's father had, died leaving behind several heirs besides plaintiff, notice of ejectment has been served by the plaintiff alone, the suit has also been filed by the plaintiff, as such the notice is valid and the suit was bad for non joinder of other heirs. He also contended that the notice is bad as it did not terminate tenancy from the mid night of 30th November and 1st December, 1982. He relied upon Dattonpant v. Vithal Roy, AIR 1975 SC 1111 . 4. Shri Suresh Kumbhat and Shri Bhupendra Bhatnagar Advocates filed caveat for and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. They seriously opposed the admission of the second appeal. They contended that neither in the reply to the notice nor in the written statement invalidity of the notice has been pointed out. They also contended that the defendant has clearly admitted in his written statement that the plaintiff is his landlord. They seriously opposed the admission of the second appeal. They contended that neither in the reply to the notice nor in the written statement invalidity of the notice has been pointed out. They also contended that the defendant has clearly admitted in his written statement that the plaintiff is his landlord. They lastly contended that neither in the reply to the notice nor in the written statement it has been disclosed to how the notice is invalid and plaint is bad for not imp leading his brother and sisters. They relied upon Bhagwan Das v. Bliagwan Das, AIR 1977 SC 1120 ; Motilal v. Pooran Chand, 1961 RLW 494 and Bholanath Das v. Bholanath Boral, AIR 1985 Calcutta 387 . 5. There is no substance in the second appeal. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 does not apply to the suit shop and the tenancy commenced from the first day of every english calendar month and ended on last day of the same month. The present case is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. It is admitted by the defendant that he duly received plaintiff's notice (Ex. 1) dated October 20, 1982. It terminated the tenancy on the expiry of November 30, 1982. It is also mentioned in it that the tenancy is terminated with effect from the day on which the monthly tenancy ends according to him (tenant). It is further stated in it that he (tenant) would be treated as a trespasser on the expiry of the said date. Thus there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the notice is invalid as it did not terminate the tenancy with effect from the 12 of the mid' night intervening 30th November and 1st December, 1982. No specific time was mentioned in the notice. Therefore, the tenant was entitled to deliver possession of the disputed premises at last hour of November 30, 1982, namely, mid night of November 30, 1982. The intention of the landlord was quite clear that the tenancy would expire by the end of November 30, 1982 and not on any earlier point of time. Therefore, the tenant was entitled to deliver possession of the disputed premises at last hour of November 30, 1982, namely, mid night of November 30, 1982. The intention of the landlord was quite clear that the tenancy would expire by the end of November 30, 1982 and not on any earlier point of time. It has been observed in Bhagwan Das v. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1977 SC 1120 para 3 , as follows: "Now, it is settled law that a notice to quit must be construed not with a desire to find faults in it, which would render it defective, but it must be construed ut res magis valeat quam perat. "The validity of a notice to quite", as pointed out by Lord Justice Lindicy, I.J. In Sidebotham v. Holland, (1895) 1 QB 378 "ought not to turn on the splitting of a straw". It must not be read in a hyper-critical manner, nor must its interpretation be affected by pedagogic pendant ism or over refined subtlety, but it must be construed in a common sense way. See Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Roy, 45 Ind. App 222 : AIR 1918 PC 102 . The notice to quit in the present case must be judged for its validity in the light of this well recognised principle of interpretation." 6. In Dattonpant v. Vithal Roy, AIR 1975 SC 1111 , the tenancy was terminated a day before the expiry of the month of tenancy. Such is not the case here. 7. There is also no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the.ejectment notice Ex. 1 is invalid and the plaint filed is bad as it has been given/filed by the plaintiff alone and not by all heirs of his late father. No such objection was taken either in the reply to the ejectment notice or in the written statement. On the contrary, it has been admitted in the reply as well as in the written statement that the plaintiff is his sole landlord. Admittedly, the plaintiff's father died in the year 1974, present suit was filed in the year 1983 and the rent was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant during this long inter venting period. It is also admitted by the. defendant in his written statement that he remitted rent by money orders addressed to the plaintiff alone. Admittedly, the plaintiff's father died in the year 1974, present suit was filed in the year 1983 and the rent was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant during this long inter venting period. It is also admitted by the. defendant in his written statement that he remitted rent by money orders addressed to the plaintiff alone. As such it cannot be said that the ejectment notice Ex. 1 was invalid and the plaint was bad as it was not given/filed by all the heirs of Kapoor Chand (Plaintiff's father). 8. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and decrees of the learned lower courts are affirmed. 9. The defendant-appellant is given time up to December 31, 1994 to vacate the suit shop and to deliver its actual and physical possession to the plaintiff-respondent provided he remits the entire arrears of rent and mesne profits up to December 31, 1994 and costs of both the lower courts by money order to the plaintiff and furnishes an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Munsif, Abu Road to the effect that he would not part with the possession of the suit shop during this period, both within two months from today.Appeal dismissed. *******