NOOR MOHD Vs. SRI NANWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point which arises in this appeal is whether the tender of the arrears of rent by the defendant- tenant to the lawyer who sent the notice of de mand on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord, within one month of the receipt of the notice, amounted to valid compliance with the said notice and the defendant-tenant can not be held to have failed to pay the arrears demanded within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) BOTH the courts below have held on the reading of the contents of the notice that the lawyer not having been authorised to receive the arrears of rent the tender made to him would not amount to a com pliance of the demand.

(3.) ANOTHER difficulty which I find in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent is that a notice of demand by a duly authorised lawyer will be competent under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act only if the lawyer is a 'landlord' within the meaning of that sec tion. On the language of the section, there fore, the payment within one month of the receipt of the notice has to be tendered to the lawyer as he is the landlord within the meaning of that section. If it be said that the lawyer was only authorised to send a notice of demand and serve it upon the ten ant but was not authorised to receive the payment, then such a lawyer cannot be said to be 'landlord' within the meaning of Sec tion 3 (1) (a).