Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.)THIS second appeal has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned single Judge because he found himself in disagreement with the decision of K.B. Asthana, J., in Second Appeal No. 1508 of 1970 Munni Lal v. Pandit Har Prasad and another decided on 13th October, 1972.* * Reported in 1973 Ren CR 263 (All)
(2.)THE second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of his tenant (the appellant) from the premises in suit and for recovery of arrears of rent. THE appellant undisputably is the tenant of a house of which the plaintiff respondent is the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. On account of some dispute, the respondent refused to accept rent from the appellant and the latter consequently made an application before the court competent to entertain the same on the 1st May, 1967 and deposited the rent till then due on the same day, under Section 7-C(1) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act. Subsequently by an order dated 10th January, 1968 the court confirmed the deposit made by the appellant. On the 4th March, 1968 the respondent sent a notice to the appellant demanding arrears of rent and the appellant replied informing him that he was depositing rent in court under Section 7-C(1) of the Act. THEreupon the respondent sent to the appellant another notice dated 16th May, 1968 whereby he asked him not to deposit rent in court any further and to tender the amount directly to him. By means of this notice the appellant was warned that in future any deposit of rent in court would not be recognised. By means of a letter dated 21st May, 1968, the tenant intimated to his landlord in response to the notice dated 16th May, 1968 that he had been intending to make the deposit of rent for the period 1st February, 1968 to 30th April, 1968 also in court but having in the meantime received this notice, he would be sending the amount directly to him. He, however, did not do so. THEreupon the respondent on the 19th July, 1968 sent another notice to his tenant demanding from him rent for the period 1st February, 1968 to 30th June, 1968 as also an amount of Rs. 27 on account of Bhumi Bhawan Kar. This was a composite notice of demand and termination of tenancy. This notice was served on the defendant-tenant on the 20th July, 1968. In the meanwhile on the 16th July, 1968 the appellant made a deposit of rent due for the period 1st February, 1968 to 30th April, 1968 in court purporting to do so under Sec. 7-C(1) of the Act. Since the rent and Bhumi Bhawan Kar demanded was not tendered to the landlord, he followed up the notice dated 19th July, 1968, by instituting the suit giving rise to this appeal for ejectment of the appellant and recovery of arrears of rent, Bhumi Bhawan Kar and damages for use and occupation.
The suit was resisted by the appellant, who claimed that no arrears of rent were due from him since he had made deposit of the requisite amount in proceedings under Section 7-C of the Act. He put forward a number of other pleas in defence which it is unnecessary to set out in detail in this judgement.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the appellant. It, however, directed recovery of rent from the defendant for the period commencing 1st May, 1969 onwards, though the plaintiff had made no claim for rent for any period prior to 1st February 1968. The plaintiff appealed. The court below allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement and decree of the trial court. It decreed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment of the appellant from the premises in suit and for recovery of an amount of Rs. 132.90 P. as arrears of rent Rs. 7.10 P. as damages for use and occupation and Rupees 27/- on account of Bhumi Bhawan Kar besides pendente lite and future damages Rs. 20/- per month. From the date of the institution of the suit till the date of actual ejectment subject to payment of additional court-fee. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff of both the courts.

(3.)THE court below has recorded a finding that the notice dated 19th July, 1968 was duly served on the appellant on the 20th July, 1968. It held that after the notice dated 16th May, 1468 the deposit of rent for the period 1st February, 1968 to 30th June 1968 by the appellant under Section 7-C(1) of the Act on the 16th July, 1968 could not be taken notice of under Section 7-C (6). It repelled the contention that as a result of the notice dated 19th July, 1968 the earlier notice dated 16th May, 1968 stood waived and could not operate as a notice to the tenant in writing by the landlord signifying willingness to accept rent for the purposes of Section 7(1) of the Act. THE appellant was found to be in arrears of payment of rent for more than three months and consequently the plaintiff's suit was decreed as already stated.
Aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the court below, the appellant has appealed. When the appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, it appears to have been urged before him that by means of the notice dated 26th May, 1968 and the one dated 19th July, 1968 the respondent had merely demanded arrears of rent and such a demand could not operate as a notice in writing intimating the landlord's willingness to accept rent for the future within the meaning of Section 7-C (1) of the Act. This argument was inspired because of the decision of K.B. Asthana, J. in Munni Lal'scase (1973 Ren CR 263) (All) (supra), which undoubtedly supports the contention. It was held in the above-mentioned decision that, "To be of real benefit to the landlord and the tenant the rent which all becomes due in future also must be signified to be acceptable to the landlord. In my judgement only that notice in writing signifying the willingness of the landlord to accept rent would be the proper notice under Sub-Section (1) of S.7-C which informs a tenant that all future rent would also be acceptable by the landlord and the tenant need not, therefore, take recourse to the machinery of law for depositing it in court. Viewed from this angle, a notice merely demanding payment of arrears of rent accompanied by termination of tenancy is nothing but a mere demand of what the tenant had not paid to the landlord and cannot be construed or interpreted signifying the willingness of the landlord to receive future rent as the tenancy stands terminated and there will be no occasion for accrual of future rent."