Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard Shri M.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed by the tenants. Landlords-respondents 1 to 4 instituted suit for eviction against the tenants (petitioners and proforma respondents) in the form of S.C.C. Suit no.5 of 1997 after terminating the tenancy of the tenant. J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah through judgment and decree dated 22.9.2008 decreed the suit. The defence of the tenants had been struck off under Order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. Against the said decree tenants petitioners filed S.C.C. Revision no.15 of 2008 which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Etawah on 17.9.2012 hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is a godown rent of which is Rs.75/- per month. The suit was filed by Om Prakash who died during pendency of the suit and was substituted by respondents 1 to 4 his sons. Om Prakash was son of Vasudeo the admitted landlord. Tenant pleaded that Vasudeo had executed a Will in favour of his grand sons i.e. respondents 1 to 4. Suit was wrongly filed by Om Prakash. Firstly this question could be raised by respondents 1 to 4 secondly, after the death of Om Prakash respondents 1 to 4 were substituted as plaintiff. Tenants admitted that Vasudeo had appointed his son Om Prakash as agent to collect the rent. Even in Misc. Case no.113 of 1987 instituted by the tenants under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 Om Prakash was made opposite party. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the findings of the courts below regarding right of Om Prakash to file the suit. In any case as Om Prakash died during pendency of suit and his sons were substituted as plaintiffs hence defect if any stood cured. The second argument which was argued before the courts below was regarding validity of the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition has very vehemently argued that the notice was not valid. Copy of notice is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the last paragraph of the notice it is mentioned that the tenant should vacate the premises after thirty days otherwise suit would be filed for eviction. The argument is that the magic words "tenancy is terminated" have not been used. Copy of notice is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the last paragraph of the notice it is mentioned that the tenant should vacate the premises after thirty days otherwise suit would be filed for eviction. The argument is that the magic words "tenancy is terminated" have not been used. However, in my opinion asking tenant to vacate after thirty days of remaining in possession and further stating that in default suit for eviction would be filed is sufficient for termination of tenancy. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the leading Division Bench authority of this court reported in Abdul Jalil vs. Haji Abdul Jalil A.I.R. 1974 Allahabad 402 and has contended that the notice given in the present case is like the notice at Sl. No.D given in para-10 of the said authority. I do not agree with the said contention. Notice at Sl. No.D in the said authority stated that "your tenancy is terminated with effect from today." Accordingly it was held to be illegal. In the instant case the notice is exactly like the notice mentioned in Clause F of para 10 of the aforesaid Division Bench authority which is quoted below:- "You are given this notice to quit or vacate the premises on the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of this notice failing which a suit for ejectment shall be filed against you." In para-19 of the aforesaid authority such type of notice has been held to be perfectly valid. Accordingly I do not find any error in the impugned judgments, order and decree. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. Tenant-petitioners are granted one year's time to vacate provided that:- 1. Within six weeks from today tenants file an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of one year they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondents. 2. For this period of one year, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 24,000/-( at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within six weeks before the J.S.C.C. and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondents. 3. 2. For this period of one year, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 24,000/-( at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within six weeks before the J.S.C.C. and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondents. 3. Within six weeks from today tenants shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to landlord respondents. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court after six weeks and shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month since after six weeks till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs.24,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of one year then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month since after one year till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlords to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application. _____________