JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This Second Appeal by a tenant arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. The defendant occupied a house belonging to the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. Rent was in arrear for a number of months. The plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 408/8/- on account of arrears of rent for 29 months. The plaintiff's case is that, the defendant did not pay up the arrears in spite of this notice. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit against the defendant to recover the sum of Rs. 442/8/- on account of arrears of rent and for the defendant's ejectment. 2. The defendant admitted the tenancy. The defence was that just one month after the receipt of the notice the defendant sent a sum of Rs. 409/- to the plaintiff by telegraphic money order. But the plaintiff refused to accept the money. The learned Munsif held that money was not sent to the plaintiff within the period of one month mentioned in the notice. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, decreed for ejectment, and arrears of rent with costs. 3. The defendant appealed. The appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Allahabad. The appeal was dismissed. But parties were ordered to bear their own costs in the two Courts. Saliq Ram defendant has now come to this Court in Second Appeal. 4. The sole question urged on behalf of the appellant was that, there was no failure to pay up the arrears within the period of one month mentioned in the notice. Notice was issued on the 10th of December 1956. So payment could be made up to the 10th of January 1957. The defendant produced evidence to the effect that, on 10-1-1957 he remitted the sum of Rs.409/- by telegraphic money-order. Parties are not agreed as to whether the money reached the plaintiff on 10-1-1957. 5. The defendant produced oral and documentary evidence in order to establish that the money order did reach the plaintiff on 10-1-1957. After considering the evidence produced by the parties the learned Civil Judge concluded that, the defendant dispatched the arrears of rent by telegraphic money order within time, but failed to prove that the amount was taken or tendered to the plaintiff within time. 6. The telegraph peon was not produced in defence. After considering the evidence produced by the parties the learned Civil Judge concluded that, the defendant dispatched the arrears of rent by telegraphic money order within time, but failed to prove that the amount was taken or tendered to the plaintiff within time. 6. The telegraph peon was not produced in defence. Nonetheless is was urged for the appellant that there is a presumption under Sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that, the money order did reach the plaintiff on 10-1-1957. Reliance was placed upon Sushil Kumar v. Ganesh Chand, A.I.R. 1958 , Cal. 251. In that case the notice to quit was sent by registered post. The notice was returned with the endorsement `refused'. It was held that two different presumptions arise. One is the presumption as mentioned in illustration (f) of Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act that the common course of business was followed in the particular case. The Court was entitled to hold that the postal peon did go to the addressee and the return of the cover was due to one of two reasons, either that the man was not found or that though found he refused. These circumstances entitled the Court to hold, unless, the contrary is proved, that the endorsement `refused' was made by the peon himself and that it was correctly made. 7. It will be noticed that, in Sushil Kumar's case there was actually an endorsement to the effect that, the addressee refused to accept the registered notice. In the present case the defendant did not produce any such endorsement of refusal dated 10-1-1957. A certain register of the telegraph office was produced in defence. There is oral and documentary evidence suggesting that, there was refusal by the plaintiff on 14-1-1957. It may be that, the money order did reach the plaintiff on 14-1-1957, and on that date the plaintiff declined to accept the money order. But the question to be considered in the present case is whether there was such a refusal on the 10th of January 1957. 8. There is no reliable evidence in the present case to prove refusal by the plaintiff on 10-1-1957. So the finding of learned Civil Judge that the defendant failed to prove that the amount was taken or tendered to the plaintiff within the time should be accepted. 9. 8. There is no reliable evidence in the present case to prove refusal by the plaintiff on 10-1-1957. So the finding of learned Civil Judge that the defendant failed to prove that the amount was taken or tendered to the plaintiff within the time should be accepted. 9. Next it was urged for the appellant that, the defendant having remitted the money within, time, it should be held that there was no default by the tenant. The matter is governed by Cl. (a) of Sec. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. Ground (a) mentioned in Sec. 3 of the Act is :- "That the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand." 10. It was urged for the appellant that, there was no wilful default. That may be so. But under Cl. (a) of Sec. 3 of the Act as it stands now, it is not necessary for the landlord to prove wilful default on the part of the tenant. At one time Cl. (a) of Sec. 3 of the Act ran thus :- "That the tenant has wilfully failed to make payment." The language of Cl. (a) as it stands now is different. The word `wilful' does not appear now in Cl. (a) of Sec. 3 of the Act. Under the present Cl. (a), the landlord has merely to prove that, the tenant failed to pay arrears of rent to the landlord within one month of the service of the notice. 11. In the present case notice was issued on 10-12-1956. The landlord proved that the tenant failed to pay the arrears up to 10-1-1957. The landlord succeeded in bringing the case under Cl. (a) of Sec. 3 of the Act. The learned Civil Judge took into consideration the fact that money was remitted within time. In view of that consideration, parties were ordered to bear their own costs in the two Courts. The defendant had no good excuse for filing this Second Appeal. 12. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The stay orders dated 6-1-1958 and 20-3-1958 are vacated. Let the record be sent back to the lower court as soon as possible.