- (1.)This is a Defendant's second appeal from the decree of the Third Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur reversing that of the Munsif City, Kanpur and ordering the ejectment of the Appellant. The Plaintiff is the owner and landlord of a house in Kanpur of which the Appellant was a tenant. The rent was Rs. 4/8/- per month. The Plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the Appellant did not pay four months rent inspite of a notice of demand. The Defendant denied that he had not paid the rent.
(2.)The following facts were established before the trial court. The notice of demand was served on the Appellant on 20-5-1960. Therefore, under Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act he had to pay the arrears not later than 20th of June 1960. He remitted the entire rent by money order on the 17th of June 1960. This remittance was tendered by the post office on 2-7-1960 when it was refused by the landlord. On these fact the trial court held that the Appellant had failed to pay the rent within one month of demand and ordered his ejectment. On appeal the learned Civil Judge held that the Appellant had not committed any default because he had remitted the rent by money order within one month of demand and the remittance should have reached the landlord in the ordinary course and it was not the Appellant's fault if the post office was negligent in delivering the money order within time. Accordingly he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff who has come here in second appeal.
(3.)The decision of the lower appellate court is clearly erroneous. Under Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act the tenant has to pay the rent to the landlord within one month of the service of a notice of demand on him. Payment to the landlord may be made by the tenant personally or through the agent. But it must reach the landlord within one month of a demand. The post office is, for the purpose of Section 3(1)(a), the agent of the tenant and any delay or negligence by the post office is that of the tenant's agent. It is not enough for the tenant to prove that he sent the remittance before the expiry of one month: he must further prove that the remittance reached the landlord before the expiry of the month. If his agent is negligent, he may seek his remedy, if any, against the latter, but the landlord is not concerned with the causes of the delay unless it can be established that it was caused by the landlord's own conduct. In the present case there is nothing to show that the cause of the delay was due to the fault of the landlord.