V.D. Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit filed by him for ejectment and arrears of rent. According to the plaint the Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/ - and the tenancy was to commence from the 1st of every English calendar month and expired with the end of the month. The Defendant fell in arrears of rent from 1 -10 -56, to 31 -12 -1956. Therefore, a notice demanding the arrears of rent and for ejectment was given on 3 -1 -57 which was served on the Defendant on 7 -1 -57. The Defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice, hence the suit.
(2.) THE Defendant inter alia pleaded that the notice was wrong and illegal. In the courts below the ground on which it was argued that the notice was illegal was that the rent had not remained in arrears for a period of more than three months and the before, the landlord was not entitled to issue notice or file a suit for ejectment. Before us in the alternative it was also argued that in any event rent for more than three months was not in arrears and therefore, the notice was invalid and the suit was barred by Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The plea taken by the Defendant in the court below found favour with both the courts and therefore, they decreed the suit for arrears of rent but dismissed the suit for ejectment. Aggrieved by the decision the Plaintiff has filed the present second appeal in this Court. It came U.P. for hearing before one of us and the case of Rim Saran v. L. Bir Sen, 1958 AWR HC 62 was relied upon on behalf of the Respondent. The single did not agree with the view expressed in that case and as there was likely to be two contradictory decisions of two single judges the matter was referred by him to a Bench.
(3.) IN Ram Saran v. L. Bir Sin, 1958 AWR HC 62 the learned single Judge had observed: Under Section 3(1)(a) the notice demanding the arrears must be served after the arrears have been of more than three months duration. That is the rent due may be only for one month but it should have remained in arrears for a period of three months. Actually it was not necessary in that case to decide that point and to us it appears to be in the nature of an obiter. In that case, the suit had been brought before the amending Act had come into force Under Section 3(1)(1) as it stood before the amendment The words 'three months' were not in the section and therefore, even if the rent was in arrears for one month and the tenant had made willful default a suit could be instituted. The learned single Judge had held that the amending Act was not retrospective and that the case should have been decided on the law as it stood before the amendment.;