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 arrears of rent for five months amounting to Rs. 150 and asked the Defendant to pay up this amount within one month failing winch he was to vacate the premises by the 31st August, 1952. The Defendant, admittedly sent a telegraphic money-order for Rs. 150 on the 16th August, 1953, but this money-order was not accepted by the Plaintiff. The Defendant's case was that he had correctly addressed the money order and the Plaintiff failed to accept the money-order only to make good her cause of action for ejectment against the Defendant while the Plaintiff's case was that the money-order was not correctly addressed and as such she refused to accept it through her sister, who was actually present at the time when the money-order was tendered by the postal peon. The original money-order form prepared by the post office on receipt of telegraphic instructions was summoned from the post office and the two peons who went to deliver the telegraphic money-order were also produced on behalf of the Defendant. The original money-order form prepared by the post office on receipt of telegraphic instructions was summoned from the post office and the two peons who went to deliver the telegraphic money-order were also produced on behalf of the Defendant. In the money-order form D.W. 1/1 it appears that the name of Niranjan Lal intervenes between the words "Mrs." and "Finch" although this name has been scored out. The two courts have considered the evidence produced by the Defendant as also this document in arriving at the conclusion that the money-order must have been addressed to one Mrs. Niranjan Lal Finch. Unfortunately none of the two courts seems to have considered the receipt given by the post office to the Defendant at the time when tendered the money to be transmitted by the telegraphic money-order. In this receipt the words "Mrs. Finch" are clearly mentioned and there is no intervening word "Niranjan Lal" in between the words "Mrs." and "Finch". In telegraphic money-orders the original forms tendered by the sender is not transmitted to the office of disbursement but only a telegraphic intimation of the address of the sender and of the payee is issued and a form is drawn up at the receiving post office for the purpose of delivery of the money-order. No doubt, the words "Niranjan Lal" which have been scored had appeared on the form thus prepared by the post office, but this does not mean that the sender held also made that mistake. In fact it was Niranjan Lal who sent this money-order and there seems to be no good reason to believe that he had put his own name as a part of the name of the payee, and if there was any such mistake it must have been the mistake of the post office, especially when the postal receipt granted to the Defendant clearly showed that the money order was addressed to. Mrs. Finch. I am unable, therefore, to accept the view taken by the two courts below that the money-order was not correctly addressed. 4. It remains now to be seen if the money was sent in proper time. The Defendant admittedly resides in the same premises in which the Plaintiff resides and due presumably to strained relations between the parties on account of non-payment of rent the Defendant thought it fit to send the money by money-order on the 16th August, 1952. 4. It remains now to be seen if the money was sent in proper time. The Defendant admittedly resides in the same premises in which the Plaintiff resides and due presumably to strained relations between the parties on account of non-payment of rent the Defendant thought it fit to send the money by money-order on the 16th August, 1952. As the notice was served on the 17th July, 1952, the Defendant was within his rights in tendering the amount on any date by the 17th of August. It would normally take a telegraphic money-order to be delivered at the same place only a few hours, and in this particular case there is an endorsement bearing the date 16th August, 1952, that the addressee was not found. It must have therefore been taken to the addressee again on the next working day which was the 18th of August. There is an endorsement of the 17th of August also, but it appears to have been made either deliberately or by mistake. This endorsement was dated the 17th of August which happened to be a Sunday. This endorsement must have been made either on the 18th or on the 19th. The Defendant was justified in believing that the money-order would be delivered in time and if by some reason for which the Defendant cannot be held responsible the money-order could not actually be delivered on the 16th or the 17th of August, the non-payment under the circumstances cannot be said to be wilful. The only ground on which the court has held the default to be wilful is that the money-order was not correctly addressed and that the Plaintiff was justified in refusing it. As remarked above, I am unable to concur with the view taken by the courts below that the money-order was not properly addressed and I am of opinion that there is nothing on the record to show that the money-order was not properly addressed when it was tendered for delivery to the post office. The default cannot be said to be wilful and the Defendant could not therefore be liable for ejectment. 5. The default cannot be said to be wilful and the Defendant could not therefore be liable for ejectment. 5. There is no doubt that the Defendant has been very negligent in the payment of rent and has driven the Plaintiff to the necessity of sending a notice off and on for recovery of her rent and she had also to institute a suit for the amount of arrears. Taking this circumstance into consideration I do not think it fit to award costs to the Defendant though he succeeds in this appeal. 6. As a result the appeal is allowed and the decree for ejectment passed by the two courts below is set aside and the suit for ejectment is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. 7. The stay order is vacated. 8. Leave for special appeal has been asked for but is refused.