Judgment :- The appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.178 of 1984 laid by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profits. 2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property, namely the house, was leased out to the appellant/ defendant for a period of 5 years from 14.4.1974, which expired on 13.4.1979. As the appellant/defendant failed to vacate the suit property, the respondent/plaintiff gave a notice on 29.8.1983 terminating the lease and demanding the balance of arrears of rent. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant on the ground that the lease granted to the appellant/ defendant on 14.4.1974, for a period of 5 years, namely till 13.4.1979, even though had expired, since the appellant/defendant continued to be in possession and was paying the rent, he is entitled to be in occupation as a tenant in holding over. 4. Upon the above rival contentions, the trial Court framed the following relevant issues: (i) Whether the notice issued by the respondent/plaintiff is valid in law? (ii) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession and mesne profits? 5. The fit person of the respondent/plaintiff – temple was examined as P.W.1 and through him five documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A5, of which it is relevant to mention, Ex.A1 - the lease deed dated 3.6.1974, and Ex.A2 - notice dated 29.8.1983 issued on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/ defendant terminating the lease. 6. The appellant/defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked 14 documents, namely Exs.B1 to B14 – receipts for payment of rent. 7. Appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, by judgment and decree dated 10.12.1987 in O.S.No.178 of 1984 held that the notice dated 29.8.1983, marked as Ex.A2, is not valid in law, but however the respondent/ plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit of Rs.2546/- towards arrears of rent and dismissed the suit. 8. However, on appeal at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff in A.S.No.107 of 1988 before the learned V Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, dated 10.12.1987 in O.S.No.178 of 1984 was set aside and consequently, the suit was decreed holding that the notice dated 29.8.1983, marked as Ex.A2 is valid in law. Hence the above second appeal. 9. Hence the above second appeal. 9. Mr.K.S.Vamsidhar, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant raised two substantial questions of law, on which the above second appeal was admitted: (i) Whether the notice terminating the tenancy is correct in law? and (ii) Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the tenancy is according to the Tamil calendar month is correct in law? 10. The vital issue that arises for my consideration is, whether the notice dated 29.8.1983, marked as Ex.A2, is valid in law? 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff by notice dated 29.8.1983, marked as Ex.A2, which was admittedly served on the appellant/defendant on 1.9.1983, terminated the lease by the end of Avani, i.e., 16.9.1983 and required the appellant/defendant to vacate and hand-over the possession on or before 17.9.1983, which means the appellant/defendant was given maximum time till 17.9.1983, i.e., more than 15 clear days, as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, even though an option was given to him to vacate the premises even before that. 12. In my considered opinion, the maximum period given to the appellant/defendant, i.e., 17 days is strictly in accordance with the statutory requirement prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, Ex.A2, notice dated 29.8.1983, terminating the tenancy of the appellant/defendant is strictly in accordance with law. The substantial question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is answered accordingly, and consequently, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.