Randhir Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and for possession of a house.
(2.) IT appears that the Defendant was alternate of the Plaintiff in occupation of a part of a house on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 18. On the 10th October, 1949, the Plaintiff served the Defendant with a notice requiring him to vacate the premises by the end of October and to pay up the rent upto the end of October, 1949. The Defendant did not pay the arrears or vacate the premises and the Plaintiff then instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal for possession and for arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the Defendant on the ground that the rent for the period 1st September, 1946 to 31st March, 1947 was not in arrears and had been paid up and that the rent for the period after the 1st April, 1947, had been sent to the Plaintiff regularly by moneyorders but he refused to accept them. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the Defendant that the Plaintiff was not entitled to eject the Defendant. A number of issues were framed by the trial court. The trial court, however, found that the Defendant's contention that the rent upto the 31st March, 1947, had been paid up was correct, but as the Defendant had not paid up the arrears within one month after the notice had been served the default in payment would be wilful within the meaning of law. The suit for possession and for arrears of rent was ultimately decreed by the trial court.
(3.) THE Defendant then went up in appeal. The lower appellate court, however, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit for ejectment but maintained the decree for arrears of rent. The Plaintiffs have now come up in second appeal.;