JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— The question raised in this appeal depends upon the true construction of some section of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1901. The plaintiffs claim was to recover from the defendants, who are his tenants, three years' arrears of rent. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim in respect of the first two years; but in respect of the last year held that the tenancy bad been duly determined within the meaning of section 83, and the following section of the Act to which we have referred. On appeal the lower appellate Court held that the defendants were liable to nay the three years arrears of rent claimed, on the ground that the defendants had not given the land-holder, before the 1st of April, a notice in writing of their intention to surrender the holding. Section (83)(1) enables a tenant, not bound by a lease or other agreement for a fixed period, at the end of any agricultural year to surrender his holding; but sub-section (2) provides that, notwithstanding such surrender, unless the tenant before the 1st day of April gives to the land-holder notice in writing of his intention to surrender, he shall be liable to the land-holder for the rent of the holding for the agricultural year next following the date of the surrender. Admittedly no notice was in this case given, but the appellants rely upon the provisions of section 85 of the Act. That section declares that “if the land-holder refuses to receive any notice under section 83 or 84, the tenant may, before the expiry of the period limited for giving such notice, make an application to the Tahsildar, who shall thereupon cause the notice to be served on such land-holder, the tenant paying the costs of such service.” The appellants rely upon the fact that on the 26th of March, that is, six days before the 1st of April, they applied to the Tahsildar under section 85 to have a notice “of surrender served upon the respondent, and that the Tahsildar had served the notice accordingly. 2. In making this application the appellants did not state that they had already tendered to the land-holder a notice of their intention to surrender their holding, and that he had refused to receive that notice. “The land-holder did not in fact refuse to receive any notice. 2. In making this application the appellants did not state that they had already tendered to the land-holder a notice of their intention to surrender their holding, and that he had refused to receive that notice. “The land-holder did not in fact refuse to receive any notice. This being so, it appears to us that the notice given by the Tahsildar was not a good notice within the meaning of the section. A tenant can only effect service upon his land-holder under section 85 in a case in which the tenant has already tendered to his land-holder a notice in writing of his intention to surrender, and the landholder has refused to receive the notice. The Act provides two days in which a notice of intention to surrender may be served, one by the tenant, before the 1st day of April, giving the landholder such notice in writing, and the other, on the refusal of the land-holder to receive the notice from the tenant when tendered, the latter may then apply to the Tahsildar for service ‘of the notice upon the land-holder,” and effect service through him. There is no authority given to the Tahsildar to effect service upon a land-holder who has not already refused to receive the notice tendered under section 83. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that section 86 applied and that inasmuch as no suit had been brought by the landlord to have the notice declared invalid, the landlords should be deemed to have accepted the surrender. This is not the proper construction of the opening words of section 86. That section refers to a notice such as is contemplated by section 83 or section 85, that is, either a notice given to the land-holder before the 1st day of April, which he has accepted, or to a case under section 85 where the land-holder has refused to accept the notice tendered under section 83 and the notice has been served by the Tahsildar. The expression “such notice” refers to the notice contemplated by either section 83 or section 85. 3. For these reasons we dismiss the appeal with costs.