JUDGMENT :- 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 demand 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 cannot 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 compliance of the demand.

3. I have heard at some length the learned counsel for the parties. It was argued on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the lawyer having been authorised to demand the arrears of rent on behalf of the landlord, it would be implicit in his authority to accord satisfaction to the person from whom the demand was made, hence the tender of rent to the lawyer would amount to a tender to the landlord and the notice of demand would stand complied.