U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29. 1. 1999 passed by the then District judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Small Cause court suit No. 2 of 1998 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/opposite party for ejectment of the applicant from the property in suit and for arrears of rent and damages at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month. ( 2 ) THE opposite party filed a S. C. C. suit no. 2 of 1998 against the applicant for his ejectment and arrears of rent and damages mainty on the ground that she is land lady of the disputed shop of which the applicant had been tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 900/ -. The applicant fell in arrears of rent from February, 1996. A notice of demand and ejectment was served upon him, but neither he paid the rent nor vacated the disputed shop, hence the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE applicant/defendant admitted his tenancy in respect of property in question, but contested the suit on the ground that rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month, he did not commit any default in payment of rent and notice was Invalid and suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. ( 4 ) SMALL Cause Court on considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties held that suit was not bad for non joinder of parries. The rate of rent was Rs. 900/- per month, the applicant had not paid rent from February, 1996 onwards and committed default in payment of rent and notice of demand and to quite served was valid and the provisions of u. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply to the disputed shop. With these findings he decreed the suit. ( 5 ) AGAINST the above judgment and decree this revision has been preferred. With these findings he decreed the suit. ( 5 ) AGAINST the above judgment and decree this revision has been preferred. In this revision, the only point, which was raised was that notice was invalid and it did not terminate the tenancy of applicant, ( 6 ) IN this connection, it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the notice it has pot been expressly been stated that the tenant was required io vacate the premises on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice, failing which a suit for ejectment will be filed against him (emphasis laid ). In support of his above contention, he placed reliance on case law Km. Archnana Gupta v. Bhlkhan Singh. In paragraph no. 12 of the above judgment tt was observed that with regard to the validity of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property act, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited an authority of this Court, Abdul jalil v. Hajl Abdul Jalil. The Lucknow Bench of this Court has drawn a distinition between notice to determine a lease and notice to suit. Where the notice requiring the tenant to vacate the premises on expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the notice is given, such a notice is held not to be valid. Such a notice was held not to contain a demand for possession and did not purport to terminate the tenancy. The notice, therefore, must expressly state that the tenant was required to vacate the premises on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the notice failing which a suit for ejectment will be filed against him. Such a notice is valid. According to the authority in AIR 1974 All 402 (supra) sine quo non for thevalidity of the notice is that it must demand eviction of the premises by the lessee at the expiry of the period of notice. Such a notice is valid. According to the authority in AIR 1974 All 402 (supra) sine quo non for thevalidity of the notice is that it must demand eviction of the premises by the lessee at the expiry of the period of notice. (Matter in other language) ( 7 ) FROM reading of above notice it is clear that the land lady has clearly stated in the notice that tenancy of the applicant would stand terminated after 30 days of the receipt of notice and it was also stated therein that after expiry of 30 days from the receipt of the notice, the applicant was required to pay the arrears of rent and to remove his possession and deliver the possession to her. ( 8 ) IT Is true that the word "failing which a suit for ejectment will be filed" is not mentioned in the notice, but the question is whether notice to terminate the tenancy under Section 106 of TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 is invalid, if the assertions of filing suit is not mentioned in it. ( 9 ) AS held in the case of Km. Archana gupta (supra) sine quo non for the validity of the notice in the said case was that it must demand eviction of the premises by the lessee at the expiry of period of notice. In the present notice demand of eviction of premises by the lessee at the expiry of period of 30 days of notice has specifically been mentioned. It is also mentioned in the said case that validity of notice was considered by Full Bench case of this court in Gorakh Lal v. Maha Prasad naroyan Singh. In the said case, the Full bench had to examine "whether the notice for ejectment under Section 106 (as amended in U. P.), which was served bythe land lord on the tenant purport to say that the tenant should vacate the premises within 30 days of the service of notice". Held that the words used in the notice asking the tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of service of the notice only fix the outer limit by which the tenant must vacate. The limit fixed as the last moment of the thirtieth day of the notice, and the notice so construed was strictly according to the letter and spirit of the law and was valid. The limit fixed as the last moment of the thirtieth day of the notice, and the notice so construed was strictly according to the letter and spirit of the law and was valid. " ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the notice is in accordance with the requirement of Section 106, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 and there is assertion to terminate the tenancy after expiry of 30 days from the service of notice as well as to deliver possession of the premises to land lady after expiry of 30 days from the service of notice. Thus, demand of possession within stipulated period is categorically mentioned. By not mentioning "failing which suit for ejectment will be filed, it cannot be said that the land lady had not demanded possession from the lessee after expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice. ( 11 ) THE requirement of Section 106 of transfer OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 is to terminate the tenancy by 30 days notice. In the instant case there is specific averment regarding termination of tenancy and demand of possession after expiry of 30 days of notice. Thus, from the aforesaid discussions it would appear that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property act served by the land lady on the applicant does not suffer from any infirmity and it is valid notice. Therefore, tenancy of applicant was determined in accordance with law and suit for ejectment on this ground was not defective in any manner. No other point was pressed, ( 12 ) IN view of above discussions there is no force in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. The applicant is given six months time to vacate the premises in question on payment of rent decreed by the S. C. C. Court on the undertaking given by his learned counsel in this court. Revision dismissed.