S. Ali Ahmad, J.

These appeals, which have been heard together and are being disposed of by this Judgment, are by the defendant. They arise out of three suits filed by the plaintiff, seeking eviction of the appellants from the premises, they were occupying under here as tenant. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that the defendant defaulted in paying rent for the months of May, 1973 to December, 1973 for each of the suit premises, where after the plaintiffs served the defendant with notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for each of the suit premises. She says that in spite of the notice and request to vacate the premises, the defendant did not vacate them, and as such, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suits giving rise to these appeals.

2. The suit was contested by the defendants. Its case, inter-alia, was that rent for the months of May and June, 1973 was paid to the son of the plaintiff on 29-6-1973, who promised to send the receipt, but on account of an ulterior motive, he did not do so. With regard to rent for the months of July to December, 1973, it was said that the rent for these months were sent to the plaintiff by money orders, but they refused. A plea was also taken that the notices served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act were not in accordance with law.

3. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that rent for the months of May and June was paid as said by the defendant. With regard to the rent for the months of July to December, 1973, it was held that rents for these months were remitted by money orders addressed to the plaintiff, which were refused. On that basis, the Trial Court held that the defendant was not a defaulter. It, accordingly, dismissed the suits on appeal, the Lower appellate Court affirmed the finding and held that rent for the months of May and June was paid to the plaintiff. With regard to the rents for the months of July, 1973 to December, 1973, also it accepted the case of the defendant that rent for each month amounting Rs.670/- was remitted every following month. But, on the basis of the decision by a Bench of this court in the case of Rajendra Mohan Ghose, appellant versus Smt. Kaushalla Devi held that such remittance was invalid as according to it the defendant was obliged to send arrears also along with the rent for the month. Since that was not done, the Court below held the remittances to be invalid, and as such according to the Court below the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 11 (1) (d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. It, therefore, allowed the appeals and decreed the three suits for eviction. Thereafter, these three Second Appeals have been filed in this court.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeals, contended that the view in the case of Rajendra Mohan Ghose appellant versus Smt. Kanshalla Devi. (Supra) that arrears of rent also have to be remitted every month along with the current rent, has been over-ruled by a Full Bench of this. Court in the case of Rajkumar Prasad, Appellant versus Uchit Narain Singh, Respondent. The Learned Counsel is correct. It has been held by the Full Bench that when tender by tenant is refused by the Landlord, then the tenant need not remit the entire rent due as arrears.

5. Mr. Shreenath Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents conceded to this position and said that he was not in a position to support the view taken by the Court of Appeal below in view of the Full Bench decision. He, however, contended that on the Case of the defendant himself and also on the finding the defendant is a defaulter in the three cases. According to him, therefore, the decrees should be affirmed although on different grounds.

6. The case as made out by the defendant, in his written statement, inter-alia, is that when the son of the plaintiff did not give receipt for the payments made towar