JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit filed by him for ejectment and arrears of rent. According to the plaint the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/- and the tenancy was to commence from the 1st of every English calendar month and expired with the end of the month. The defendant fell in arrears of rent from 1st of October, 1956, to the 31st of December, 1956. Therefore, a notice demanding the arrears of rent and for ejectment was given on the 3rd of January 1957 which was served on the defendant on the 7th January 1957. The defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice, hence the suit. 2. The defendant inter alia pleaded that the notice was wrong and illegal. In the courts below the ground on which it was argued that the notice was illegal was that the rent had not remained in arrears for a period of more than three months and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to issue notice or file a suit for ejectment. Before us in the alternative it was also argued that in any event rent for more than three months was not in arrears and, therefore, the notice was invalid and the suit was barred by Sec. 3 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 3. The plea taken by the defendant in the court below found favour with both the courts and, therefore, they decreed the suit for arrears of rent but dismissed the suit for ejectment. Aggrieved by the decision the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal in this Court. It came up for hearing before one of us and the case of Ram Saran v. L. Bir Sen, 1958 A.W.R. High Court 62 was relied upon on behalf of the respondent. The single Judge did not agree with the view expressed in that case and as there was likely to be two contradictory decisions of two single Judges the matter was referred by him to a Bench. 4. The single Judge did not agree with the view expressed in that case and as there was likely to be two contradictory decisions of two single Judges the matter was referred by him to a Bench. 4. In Ram Saran v. L. Bir Sen, 1958 A.W.R. High Court 62 the learned single Judge had observed:- "U/s. 3 (1) (a) the notice demanding the arrears must be served after the arrears have been of more than three months duration." 5. That is the rent due may be only for one month but it should have remained in arrears for period of three months. Actually it was not necessary in that case to decide that point and to us it appears to be in the nature of an obiter. In that case, the suit had been brought before the amending Act had come into force under Sec. 3 (1) (a) as it stood before the amendment. The words `three months' were not in the section and, therefore, even if the rent was in arrears for one month and the tenant had made wilful default a suit could be instituted. The learned single Judge had held that the amending Act was not retrospective and that the case should have been decided on the law as it stood before the amendment. 6. The relevant portion of Sec. 3 as it stands now is in the following terms:- ''3 (1) Subject to any order passed under sub-Sec. (3) no suit shall, without the permission of the District Magistrate, be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation, except on one or more of the following grounds:- (a) 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 :" 7. The courts below had taken the view that the arrears must have remained unpaid for a period of more than three month's duration. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that it was not necessary that arrears should have remained for a period of more than three months but there should have been an arrears of three months, as in the present case three month's rent was in arrears. Therefore, the notice was a valid notice. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that it was not necessary that arrears should have remained for a period of more than three months but there should have been an arrears of three months, as in the present case three month's rent was in arrears. Therefore, the notice was a valid notice. 8. To rebut this reasoning learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon Ram Saran v. L. Bir Sen, 1958 A.W.R. High Court 62. In our opinion there should have been three month's arrear of rent and not that the arrears of a shorter period should have remained unpaid for three month's. The words' more than three month's follow the word `rent' and in our view they qualify the word `rent' and therefore if there is more than three months arrears of rent whether it remains in arrears for a day or more a suit could be brought. We do not agree with the observation to the contrary of the learned Single Judge made in Ram Saran v. L. Bir Sen, 1958 A.W.R. High Court 62 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the words `more than three months' and has argued that in the present case when the notice was given on the 3rd of January, 1957, only three month s rent was due and not more than three month's. It was contended that the significance of the words `more than' was that the rent should be due not only of three months but at least for four months. If the intention of the Legislature was for only three months the words `more than three months' would not have been used. We think that the contention of learned counsel for the respondent is correct. It is only when the rent for more than three months is due that the landlord can serve a notice of demand on the tenant. In case, it is a monthly tenancy it will be only when four month's rent is due, that the notice could be given. But if it is a daily or weekly tenancy there might be a shorter period when the notice could be given. 10. Learned counsel had argued that there is a bar under Sec. 3 on filing the suit. But if it is a daily or weekly tenancy there might be a shorter period when the notice could be given. 10. Learned counsel had argued that there is a bar under Sec. 3 on filing the suit. When the suit was filed the rent due was for more than three months because the suit was filed on the 11th of February 1957 and the rent of the month of January had also become due and had not been paid. According to his contention it is at the date of the suit and not at the date of the notice, that the arrears had to be reckoned. We are unable to agree with this contention. 11. Cl. (a) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 3 provides that if a tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and failed to pay "the same'' i.e. the arrears or rent of more than three months' which had become due and for which notice had been given, then the right of suit accrues to the landlord. The right of suit would not accrue unless the arrears of rent of more than three months became due. In our opinion when the tenant is in arrears of more than three month's rent, then the landlord would have a right to serve a notice under Sec. (1) (a). If during the period of one month after the receipt of he notice "the same" arrears of rent, i.e., the rent which had been demanded by the notice, are not paid then after the expiry of the per of one month from the notice he could file the suit. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel that if on the date of the suit more than three month's rent was due, he was entitled to file the suit is not correct. 12. Under the circumstances, though the view, taken by the courts below that before the suit could be filed the arrears of rent should have remained unpaid for more than three months duration is not correct, yet on another ground that the rent of more than three months was not in arrears when the notice of demand was given, the suit cannot be decreed and the dismissal of the suit by the courts below is correct. We therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.