Judgment :- Against the judgment in A.S.No.21/1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy which was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 46/1994 of the Munsiff Court, Perambra, the plaintiffs filed this appeal. The suit is filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule shop room originally belonged to plaintiffs’ father Kunhiraman Adiyodi. He died in the Year 1992. On his death, his right in the property devolved upon the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. The property was given on rent by the father of the plaintiffs to the defendant in the year 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs.125/-. The defendant paid rent only upto the month of September 1992. Subsequently the defendant did not pay the rent. The plaintiffs have sent a notice to the defendant terminating the lease and asking the defendant to give vacant possession of the shop room to the plaintiffs. The defendant sent a reply through a lawyer raising false and frivolous contentions. So the suit is for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule shop room and also for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the tenancy was not legally terminated. Notice sent by the plaintiffs is not proper and valid. The allegation that the building was taken on rent in 1989 for a monthly rent of Rs.125/- is not correct. The defendant obtained the shop room on lease in 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.60/-. The shop room was repaired in 1989. For doing the repair work, the plaintiffs father had accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the defendant. At the time of paying the amount of Rs.10,000/-, the agreement was that the defendant can set off the amount against future rent till the entire amount paid is wiped off. The defendant has also spent a sum of Rs.3,000/- for electrifying the building. So the plaintiffs are not entitled to get arrears of rent as claimed in the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed six issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and EXTs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined. The suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed six issues. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and EXTs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined. The court below after trial decreed the suit, against which the defendant filed the appeal. The first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and allowed the appeal. Against the said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed. 4. The question to be considered is whether the tenancy was legally terminated as contemplated under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get eviction of the shop room. Even though the plaintiffs claimed rent at the rate of Rs.125/- per month, the court below found that the monthly rent was Rs.60/ and the trial court found that the rent is in arrears from October 1992 onwards. That finding in the trial court is now become final. So the only question left is regarding the legality of notice. Ext.A1 is the copy of the notice sent on behalf of the plaintiffs terminating the tenancy. The contention of the defendant is that as per Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy is to be terminated at the end of the tenancy month. As per Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act, in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice expiring with the end of a year of the tenancy; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days’ notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. So according to the defendant, the lease was not terminated as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the notice what is stated is: 5. So according to the defendant, the lease was not terminated as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the notice what is stated is: 5. Learned counsel, for the plaintiffs argued that there is no ambiguity in the notice and as held in Jacob v. Saleem (1989(1) KLT 248 a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is a technical rule. It should not be construed in a pedantic and impractional way so as to pick-holes and find fault with the notice. The aim of the interpretation should be only to ascertain whether the person receiving the notice has understood the same. A liberal contraction would always enable to do practical justice to the cause. So the court should construe the quit notice, in such a way that it should not be defeated by inaccuracies in the language of the notice especially in matter of the description of the premises, the name of the tenant or the name of the landlord or the date of expiry of the notice. The rule has been to make lame and inaccurate notices sensible where the recipient cannot have been misled as to the intention of the giver. A liberal construction is put upon a notice to quit so that it is not defeated by minor errors. Notice to quit, may notwithstanding erroneous particulars, be still good and effective so long as the recipient is not misled. Still it has to be remembered that the benefit of lessees and so, the construction which deprives a tenant of the minimum period of notice stipulated in the section is not permissible. Here in the instant case the notice was sent on 1-12-1993 and, it is stated that vacant possession is to be given with arrears of rent within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice and the tenancy is terminated on the 30th of December or any other date which the tenant considers as the termination of tenancy. Thus there is more than 15 days to quit the premises as provided in Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So it cannot be found that there is any ambiguity with regard to the description of the premises, the name of the tenant or the name of the landlord or the date of expiry of the notice. Thus there is more than 15 days to quit the premises as provided in Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act. So it cannot be found that there is any ambiguity with regard to the description of the premises, the name of the tenant or the name of the landlord or the date of expiry of the notice. In such circumstances, it cannot be found that there is no legal termination of tenancy. As per the notice, the tenancy was terminated on 30th December or on any other dates which the tenant considers as the termination of tenancy. Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act says that lease is terminable by 15 days notice expiring on the end of a tenancy month. Here the tenancy month started the first day of every month. So it ends on the last day of every calendar month. It is true that the end of the month is 31st December. But it is to be remembered that as per Sec.106 of the T.P.Act, the tenant is only to get 15 days notice for terminating the lease. Notice was sent on 1-12-1993. Ext.A2 is the reply sent by the defendant to Ext.A1 notice. It was received by him on 7-12-1993. As per Ext.A1 notice, the lease was terminated on 30-12-1993. So it can be seen that the tenant had more than 15 days to vacate the building. Merely because the tenancy was not terminated on the last day of tenancy month, but one day prior to the last day of tenancy month will not make any confusion on the tenant. In Bhagabandas v. Bhagawandas (AIR 1977 S.C. 1120) it was held 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 pereat. So the quit notice has to be liberally construed. The only thin is that the tenant must have given 15 days notice to give vacant possession of the building. The tenant has no case that he has not given 15 days notice for vacating the building or there is any ambiguity with regard to the description of the premises, the name of the tenant or landlord or the date of expiry of the notice. The tenant has no case that he has not given 15 days notice for vacating the building or there is any ambiguity with regard to the description of the premises, the name of the tenant or landlord or the date of expiry of the notice. Therefore, even if the lease was terminated before one day prior to the last day of tenancy month, it is of no consequence. In such circumstances I am constrained to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The appeal is allowed.