JUDGMENT

Randhir Singh, J. - This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house which is said to be in the occupation of the Defendant-Appellant as a tenant.

2. It appears that a suit was instituted by the Plaintiff-Respondent against the Defendant on the allegations that his tenancy had been determined by a valid notice and that he had failed to vacate the premises. The Defendant contested the suit mainly on the ground that there had been no wilful default in the payment of rent after the notice was served on him on the 17th July, 1952, and that no cause of action accrued to the Plaintiff for the suit for ejectment. Both the Courts have found that the default was wilful and have decreed the suit for ejectment. The Defendant has now come up in second appeal.

3. It is not disputed that the Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiff and was in the occupation of the premises in dispute and that some rent was in arrears in July, 1952. According to the Plaintiff the rent was in arrears from the 1st February, 1952 onwards and in the notice sent by the Plaintiff on the 14th July, 1952, and received by the Defendant on the 17th July, 1952, the Plaintiff made a demand for arr