JUDGMENT : This is defendant's second Appeal and arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Pyarchand against the defendant, Ramkunwar for arrears of rent and ejectment. 2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant took from him on monthly rent of Rs. 13/- back portion of 2nd and 3rd storey of his house in Marothya Bazar. According to the plaintiff the defendant paid rent up to Pagan Sudi 10 S. Y. 2002 and later on for subsequent months the defendant did not pay rent and was in arrears for 10 months. According to plaintiff the defendant did not pay rent from. Chait Sudi 10, S. Y. 2003 to Pose Sudi 10, S. Y. 2003. Hence the rent was in arrears amounting to Rs. 130/-. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant to vacate the house but the defendant did not vacate it. Hence his suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. 3. The defendant in his written statement admitted the tenancy but contended that he had paid the full amount of rent regularly up to Magsar Sudi, 10, S. Y. 2003. He also sent one month's rent by Money Order but the defendant refused to accept it. The defendant contended that he had deposited Rs. 52/- in Court as rent due and subsequent payments have been made in Court up to 20th July 1949. The trial Court found that the defendant had paid arrears of rent up to the filing of the suit. The defendant is protected by the Indore House Rent Control Order and therefore dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The plaintiff went up in appeal and the learned District Judge held that the defendant had failed to prove the alleged payment and therefore decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The future rent at Rs. 13/- per mensem from Pose Sudi 10 S. Y. 2003 till the vacant possession is given was also decreed. The defendant has come up in second appeal. 4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the defendant has proved payments from Fagan Sudi 10 S. Y. 2002 to Magsar Sudi 10 S. Y. 2003. The burden of proving this issue is on the defendant and it is necessary to determine whether his state of accounts and other corroborative evidence prove that he had paid rent Rs. The burden of proving this issue is on the defendant and it is necessary to determine whether his state of accounts and other corroborative evidence prove that he had paid rent Rs. 130/- from Pagan Sudi 10 to Magsar Sudi 10. The defendant has produced his Rokad entries D/1 to D/9, showing the payment of rent of Rs. 13/- from Chet Sudi 10 to Magsar Sudi 10 S. Y. 2003. The rokad entries it is true are not written from day to day but they are entered from kachi Rokad regularly kept for fortnightly accounts. The entries do not bear dates but indicate the fortnight of the month during which the payment was made. The rokad is in the handwriting of Prahaladdas son of defendant Ramkuwar who deposes that he has written the entries from Exs. D/1 to D/9. He says that he keeps Kachhi Rokad from which the Pakki Rokad is written up in fortnight. Sometimes the entries are written even after a month. The learned District Judge has not relied on the Pakki Rokad entries because the Kachi Rokad has not been exhibited. It appears to me from the application, made by the defendant to the trial Court on 12-1-1948 that he had already filed the Kachi Rokad entries but as they were not properly exhibited he wanted to recall his son Prahaladas who has written them. The trial Court rejected the application saying that Pakki Rokad entries have been reproduced verbatim from Kachi Rokad and therefore it is not necessary to recall Prahaldass to prove them. Thus it appears that the defendant had not deliberately kept back the Kachi Rokad entries. He had filed them along with the written statement on 9-5-1947 and they are there on the record. These entries D/1 to D/9 have been proved and because the Rokad entries are made up every fortnight is no reason why they should not be relied upon. It is not necessary that the entries in the books should have been made from day to day or from hour to hour as the transactions take place. Accounts prepared from rough books or memoranda should be treated as original accounts and cannot be rejected on the ground that they were not entered regularly from day to day. It is not necessary that the entries in the books should have been made from day to day or from hour to hour as the transactions take place. Accounts prepared from rough books or memoranda should be treated as original accounts and cannot be rejected on the ground that they were not entered regularly from day to day. All that Section 34 of the Evidence Act requires is that the entries in the accounts should be regularly kept in the course of business and the person making them should have personal knowledge of the facts stated therein. Ramkunwar had deposed that whenever he paid rent his son was always present therefore, Pranaladas son of Ramkunwar had personal knowledge of the entries. 5. The learned District Judge has also relied on the fact that the defendant has not produced the receipts of the payment of rent. It, however, appears that from the statement of Bakhtawarmal that he used to go to recover rent on behalf of his brother but he never used to pass receipt for the rent received. Bakhtawarmal further deposes that after taking the rent he used to write the payments in the defendant's account books. He never used to pass a separate receipt. Bakhtawarmal thus contradicts the plaintiff Pyarchand in this material particular. It is very significant to note that not a single question was asked to defendant Ramkunwar whether he used to obtain receipt from Bakhtawarmal in a book kept by him for this purpose. This is a very material omission and shows that no such book was kept by the defendant. Another point on which the learned District Judge has relied is that the defendant did not give any reply to the plaintiff's notice when the latter demanded arrears of rent prior to the filing of the suit. On this matter also no question was put to the defendant as to why he did not reply to the plaintiffs notice. The defendant was never asked to file reply given by him. The defendant has produced an acknowledgment showing that he did reply to the plaintiff's notice. The learned District Judge has relied on one letter Ex. P/1, dated the 1st April 1946, written by defendant Ramkunwar to the plaintiff in which the defendant complained that if no arrangement for supplying water free from pollution is made, he would not pay the rent. The learned District Judge has relied on one letter Ex. P/1, dated the 1st April 1946, written by defendant Ramkunwar to the plaintiff in which the defendant complained that if no arrangement for supplying water free from pollution is made, he would not pay the rent. However, the defendant's explanation is that the plaintiff wanted the Municipality to give him water connection from Gambhir Water Works, therefore, he asked the defendant to write a letter of the kind Ex. P/1, so that he may get connection. The defendant states that he wrote this Chithi Ex. P/1, because the plaintiff falsely induced him to write it. This Chithi Ex. P/1 would not go to show that the defendant did not pay rent after he wrote this Chithi. This is a double-edged argument and it is just possible to infer that on the strength of this Chithi the plaintiff refused to give credit of rents paid by defendant subsequently. 6. It appears to me having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the defendant who has been the plaintiff's tenant for the last ten years and has been paying rent regularly should invite trouble on himself by not paying rent from Pagan to Magsar, for a period of nine months (sic.) The conduct of the defendant shows that he has paid rents even after the institution of the suit up to 20th July 1949. 7. The plaintiff's accounts are thoroughly useless and unreliable. He has purposely failed to give credit of the rent paid from Pagan to Magsar Sudi 10 S. Y. 2003, paid by the defendant, so that the defendant cannot claim protection under the House Rent Control Order. Both the lower Courts have not relied on the plaintiff's Khata Ex. P/3. The Plaintiff's Khata Ex. P/3 is of S. Y. 2000 and he has not cared to change the Khata from year to year and no fresh Khata has been started for S. Y. 2001 and onwards. The entries in the Khata P/3 do not bear any date nor any month has been mentioned. It is thus an absolutely unreliable Khata. 8. Having regard to all the aforesaid circumstances I am of opinion that the defendant has succeeded in proving that he paid the full amount of the rent regularly up to Magsar Sudi 10, S. Y. 2003. It is thus an absolutely unreliable Khata. 8. Having regard to all the aforesaid circumstances I am of opinion that the defendant has succeeded in proving that he paid the full amount of the rent regularly up to Magsar Sudi 10, S. Y. 2003. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. Appeal allowed.