SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28. 8. 1984 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents was decreed and the judgment of the revisional authority dated 8. 9. 1989 dismissing the Revision against the aforesaid order. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondents filed suit No. 434 of 1983 in the court of Judge Small causes, Allahabad for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegations that the defendant-petitioners were tenants of the premises in dispute at Rs. 32. 50 per month. The defendant-petitioners were in arrears of rent from 1. 2. 1981 to 10. 2. 1983 whereby a notice of demand and determining the tenancy was sent on 10. 2. 1983 which was served on the defendants on 15. 2. 1983. The defendant-petitioners neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the accommodation in question. The petitioners filed written-statement. They alleged that they had deposited the amount in a proceeding under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)and were not defaulters. The landlords had refused to accept the rent. It was further stated that the notice dated 10. 2. 1963 was invalidand further the amount has been deposited under section 20 (2) (a) of the Act and the petitioners were not liable for ejectment. ( 3 ) THE trial Court framed various issues and recorded a finding that the deposit made by the petitioners under Section 30 (1) of the act was invalid as the petitioners failed to prove that the landlords ever refused to accept the rent. It was further found that the notice was valid. The trial court decreed the suit. This judgment was affirmed in Revision. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri. R. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh tandon, learned counsel for the respondents. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the notice dated 10. 2. 1983 sent by the plaintiff-respondents was invalid as the notice was sent in the month of February and the period terminating the tenancy was indicated as one month. The period of one month, if sent in the month of February, shall be less than 30 days and as such the notice was not in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The period of one month, if sent in the month of February, shall be less than 30 days and as such the notice was not in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He has place-: reliance upon a decision reported in Smt Ram Kali v. Sia Ram and Ors. wherein it was held that if the notice is sent in the month of February and received in the month of March, one month will expire on one day earlier to the date , the notice was received and thereby 30 days will not expire which is requirement of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 6 ) IN the present case of copy of the notice dated 10. 2. 1983 sent to the petitioners has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The notice was sent on 10. 2. 1983 and was served on 15. 2. 1983. Para 5 of the notice indicates that the tenancy was terminated after the expiry of one month. It further clarifies that the possession be delivered to the landlords after the expiry of the period of notice. The plaintiff-landlords again sent another notice on 14. 3. 1983 wherein it was further clarified in regard to the notice dated 10. 2. 1983 that the notice shall be taken to have been sent by all the landlords and secondly it shall before 30 days. The receipt of this notice was admitted by the tenant in his statement. This notice was also proved by the plaintiff-landlords and it was marked as Ext. 4. In view of the further clarification in the notice dated 14. 3. 1983 it is clear that the petitioners were given 30 days notice terminating their tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. ( 7 ) NO other point was pressed. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. ( 9 ) IN the end, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioners to vacated the disputed accommodation. ( 7 ) NO other point was pressed. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. ( 9 ) IN the end, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioners to vacated the disputed accommodation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners are granted 10 months time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided they give a written undertaking on affidavit before respondent No. 2 within three weeks from today that they would vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this court and will handover its peaceful possession to the plaintiff-landlord-respondents. ( 10 ) LET a certified copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within three days. Writ Petition is dismissed. .