JUDGMENT

Gopi Nath, J. - The State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers are defendant-appellants in this appeal and it arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The only question requiring consideration is whether the notice under section 80 C.P.C served on the State which was a composite notice under section 3 of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act No. III of 1947) and section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid one. The facts leading up to this appeal are as follows :

2. The plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the premises in dispute, which had been let out to the State of U. P. through its Collector at Jaunpur. The premises were used for the office of Superintending Engineer, Rural Man Power and Minor Irrigation by the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 56/-. The tenancy commenced from the 1st of each English Calendar month and ended on the last day of that month. The defendant were in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,756-57 for the period 1.3.1964 to 1 -12-1966. Despite demands the defendant-appellants failed to pay the arrears. The plaintiff accordingly served a composite notice under section 3 of Act No. III of 1947 and section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act demanding the arrears within a month and terminating the tenancy in default and requiring the defendants to quit thereafter. The notice was handed over under section 80 C.P.C., Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sector 3 of Act No. III of 1947. The notice was issued on 9-9-1966 and was served on the defendant on 12-9-1966. The defendants failed to pay the arrears within the time allowed and did not vacate the premises either they however paid a part of the rent beyond the time specified but since the arrears claimed were not cleared within time the plaintiff filed the suit on the ground of default in the payment of rent.

3. The suit was contested on the allegations that the amount claimed was offered but the plaintiff refused to accept the same hence the defendants were not defaulters within the meaning the Section 3 of Act No. III of 1947. It was further pleaded that the composite notice under section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947, section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was bad in law the tenancy was not validly terminated.

4. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the defendants had not paid the rent due within the prescribed period and were defaulter within the meaning of Section 3 of Act No. III of 1947. They had accordingly incurred a liability of ejectment. They have further found that the combined notice under section 80 C.P.C., Section 3 of Act No. III of 1947 and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid. The suit accordingly was decreed for the defendant's ejectment and for the recovery of the arrears claimed.

5. Aggrieved, the defendants have come up in second appeal and the only point urged on their behalf was that the combined notice under section 80 C.P.C., Section 3 of Act No. III of 1947 and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was had.

6. A notice under section 3 of Act No. III of 1947 is a demand notice and the one under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is for termination of tenancy. By notice under section 80 C.P.C. the concerned Government and the Public Officers are given an opportunity to settle the claim, without litigation, if so advised. In the notice Ext. 1 the defendants were Informed that huge amount of arrears of rent was outstanding against them for a period over two years and that they were not paying the same inspite of repeated verbal and written demands. They had accordingly rendered themselves liable to eviction from the accommodation. It further said that their tenancy was terminated as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but if they paid the rent within a period of one month of the service of notice of demand under Section 3 of Act No. III of 1947 their eject