YASHODA NANDAN, J. :- In a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the defendant-respondent, the following question has been referred, for consideration and answer, to this Full Bench :-

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tenant could be said to have committed a default under Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act in respect of the payment of Rs. 33 which he had sent to the landlord by money order well within time but which had reached the landlord after the expiry of 30 days ?"

2. The material facts giving rise to the reference are that Munna Lal, the defendant-respondent was a tenant of a portion of premises No. 105/336, Chamanganj, Kanpur at a monthly rent of Rs. 5. Appellants Bhikha Lal and others are owners of the said premises. The respondent fell in arrears of rent and consequently the appellant filed civil suit No. 570 of 1961 for his ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation amounting to a sum of Rs. 89.75 P. The suit for recovery of rent was ultimately decreed. The decretal amount and certain other amounts were deposited by the judgement-debtor in the trial court in compliance with a conditional interim order passed by the appellate court. The appellants did not withdraw the decretal amount in those proceedings. The respondent again fell in arrears of rent for the period 25th November, 1962 to 24th June, 1963 amounting to Rs. 33. The appellants thereupon served upon the respondent a notice on 23rd of July, 1963 demanding the amount decreed in suit No. 570 of 1961 as also arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 35. The appellants are residents of a village in Kanpur served by a post office situate at Kandana. On receipt of the notice served on him on the 23rd of July, 1963, the respondent informed the appellants-landlords by registered letter dated on 6th August, 1963 that the sum of Rs. 80.75 P. had already been deposited towards rent to the credit of the ,landlords in previous writ No. 570 of 1971 which may be withdrawn from the court and that, as regards the arrears of rent for subsequent months, the sum of Rs. 35 was being remitted by money order. The two sums together represented the arreas of rent then due and demanded. On the 7th of August, 1963 the defendant-tenant placed an order with the postal authorities in the town of Kanpur for remission of the amount of Rs. 35. The money order was directed to Bhikha Lal, the head of the family of the landlords. The money order, however, was returned to the defendant-tenant with an endorsement of refusal. This endorsement on the money order coupon was dated the 26th of August., 1963. There is no evidence on record that the money order was presented to the appellants in time within a month of the service of the notice of demand on the respondent. The appellants consequently instituted the suit giving rise to this second appeal. The suit was filed on the allegations that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and had failed to pay the amount within a month of the service on him of the notice of demand. The suit was contested on the ground that the amount of Rs. 89.75 P. claimed as arrears of rent had been deposited by the defendant-respondent in suit No. 570 of 1971 which could have been withdrawn by the appellants and that the balance of the arrears of rent claimed had been duly remitted by means of a money order, properly addressed to Bhikha Lal, the Head of the appellants, family within time but had been improperly refused acceptance by the appellants and, consequently, he was protected from ejectment by Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial court decreed the suit for arrears of rent and for ejectment of the defendant. It held that the defendant could not be considered to be a defaulter in respect of the de