JUDGMENT

SARKARIA. J.—This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated August 21, 1969, of the High Court of Allahabad affirming on second appeal the judgment of the Civil Judge, Dehra Dun. It arises out of these facts:

Umrao Singh, respondent herein, who died during the pendency of proceedings in this Court and is substituted by his legal representatives, instituted a suit on September 29, 1961 against Ram Deo, appellant herein, for damages and for eviction from House No. 122B, Choharpur, District Dehra Dun. Umrao Singh was the landlord of the suit premises. Ram Deo was occupying the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-.

2. On June 13, 1960, a sum of Rupees 600/- was due to the respondent from the appellant as arrears of rent and an agreement was executed between the parties on that date, according to which, the tenant had to pay Rs. 50/- every month to the respondent to wit Rs. 25/- towards liquidation of the compounded arrears of rent, and Rs. 25/- per month towards the current rent falling due. The appellant fell in arrears again. Thereupon, the respondent served a notice of demand upon the plaintiff on August 21, 1961, rquiring him to pay Rs. 380/- as the arrears of rent (Rs. 5/- beng balance due from the period April 10, 1960 to May 9, 1960 and Rs. 370/- for the period from May 10, 1960 to August 9, 1961) within one month from the receipt of the notice.

3. The tenant-appellant pleaded that the parties had acted upon the said agreement dated June 19, 1960 and on settlement of accounts in April 1961, a sum of Rs. 305 was alleged to be due to the respondent. Thereafter the appellant made another payment of Rs. 50/- to the respondent on June 6, 1961. On September 27, 1961 appellant tendered to the respondent a sum of Rs. 200/-. The respondent did not accept this tender, and instead, instituted the suit for damages and eviction of the appellant from the said premises.

4. The tenant further pleaded that the arrears of rent due at the date of notice was Rs. 75/- only which did not exceed three months rent, that the rest of the amount (Rs. 75/-) demanded represented only past arrears covered by the agreement in respect of which the landlord had waived his right of ejectment.

5. The trial court held that from Ex. A-2, it was clear that only three months rent was in arrears and therefore, no ground for eviction had been made out under Sec. 3 (1) (a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act No. III of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with this reasoning, the trial court dismissed the respondents petition for eviction.

6. On appeal, the Additional Civil Judge, Dehra Dun, by his judgment dated May 29, 1963, reversed the finding of the Munsif and held that the rent which was in arrears up to June 13, 1960 and which was the subject-matter of the agreement of that date, did not lose its character as "arrears of rent" merely because there was an agreement to pay the same in instalments. On these premises, he allowed the appeal and directed eviction of the tenant.

7. The tenant carried a further appeal to the High Court. The High Court affirmed the finding of the Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by the tenant.

8. Dr. Barlingey, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced two contentions First, that out of the amount of Rs. 150/- due to the respondent at the date of the notice, Rs. 75/- was due under the agreement dated June 12, 1960, and that amount could not be treated as arrears of rent and tacked on to three months current rent in arrears, for the purpose of clause (a) of Section 3 (1) of the Act. It is argued that the liability to pay the past amount of Rs. 75/- arises out of the aforeaid agreement which furnished an independent cause of action different from that founded on the rent note or the lease of the premises. Second, that Section 114 of the Tranfer to Property Act will be applicable to the situation because this is matter on which the Rent Act is silent. Since