( 1 ) THIS is a tenants second appeal against a decree for ejectment. This is one of the many cases coming to this Court from time to time in which the shortcomings and anomalies of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act are revealed. The facts which have led to the appeal are these: the appellant Rain Krishna Prasad is the tenant of a shop in Ghazipur of which the landlord is the respondent Mohd. Yahia. On 7-5-1953 the landlord sent him by registered post a notice written on a post-card, which, according to him, was a notice for demand for arrears of rent under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. No rent was paid within one month of the receipt of this notice, but on 24-9-1953 the tenant remitted a sum of Rs. 225 by money order which was refused by the landlord. On 11-11-1953 the landlord filed his suit for ejectment. The defendant denied that he had committed any default in payment of rent, he alleged that it was the other way about and that the landlord had several times refused the rent which was tendered by him. He also pleaded that the landlords notice of demand was not according to law. The trial Court held that the appellant