- (1.) The only question that arises for determination in this appeal by the defendant-tenant is whether a composite notice, served by the plaintiff-landlord on the defendant-tenant, terminating the tenancy on the expiry of 30 days from the receipt thereof and demanding the arrears of rent within one month of the service of the notice will amount to a notice in writing to the tenant signifying the willingness of the landlord to accept the rent which becomes due in respect of the accommodation let out within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 7C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) Admittedly the defendant-appellant was a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent in the accommodation in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 9/- for a number of years. In 1964, it appears the plaintiff-landlord refused to accept the rent lawfully offered to him by the defendant tenant. Thereupon proceedings under Section 7C of the Act were instituted by the defendant-tenant and ultimately the learned Munsif having jurisdiction passed an order accepting the deposit and the defendant-tenant in pursuance of that order continued to make deposits of subsequent rent. The last but one deposit was made by the tenant on 27.3.1968 of rent accrued upto March, 1968 in the Court of the Munsif under Section 7C of the Act. By a notice dated 10.4.1969, served upon the defendant-tenant on 11.4.1969, the plaintiff-landlord terminated the tenancy and demanded payment of arrears of rent within one month of the receipt thereof by the defendant-tenant. On 3.5.1969, that is within one month of the receipt of the said notice the defendant-tenant deposited the rent from April, 1968 to May, 1969, in the Court of the Munsif under Section 7C of the Act. On 24.7.1969 the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for eviction of the defendant-tenant and from recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the allegation inter alia that the defendant having failed to pay the arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand, was liable to be evicted and the suit for eviction was not barred by Section 3 of the Act. The defence plea was that all the rent due having been deposited under Section 7C of the Act in the Court of the Munsif within one month of the receipt of the notice the defendant tenant could not be said to have failed to pay the arrears of rent demanded and the suit of the plaintiff-landlord was barred by Section 3 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to the other pleadings of the parties as nothing turns upon them in this appeal.
(3.) The two Courts below took the view that the defendant-tenant could not take advantage of any deposit made by him under Section 7C of the Act after the receipt of the notice of demand served upon him by the plaintiff-landlord, as the demand made therein would be a notice in writing signifying to the tenant the willingness of the landlord to accept rent. I think the Courts below have erred in holding that a composite notice demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy would be a notice in writing to the tenant signifying the willingness of the landlord to accept the rent which becomes due within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 7C of the Act.;