JUDGMENT A. P. Srivastava, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal that arises out of a suit for ejectment. The defendant was a tenant of the premises in question and used to pay Rs. 5 per month as rent. Previous attempts to eject him had failed. Then the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant demanding Rs. 110 on account of arrears of rent for the period 1-6-1953 to 31-8-1955. In response to the notice the defendant sent Rs. 95 only by money-order. He deliberately withheld Rs. 15 claiming that he was entitled to the credit of that amount because he had spent Rs. 10 on repairs and white-washing with the consent of the plaintiff which the plaintiff had permitted him to deduct out of the rent and that he had spent the balance of Rs. 5 in money-order commission when he had earlier sent the rent by money-order. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was not entitled to claim credit for the sum of Rs. 15 and that his non-payment of the same amounted to wilful default in payment of the rent in response to the notice served upon him and that she was on that account entitled to eject the defendant. 2. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit and held that the defendant being guilty of wilful default in payment of rent was liable to be ejected. That Court recorded the finding that the story put forward by the defendant that he had spent Rs. 10/- on white-washing and repairs of the shop with the consent of the plaintiff on getting an assurance from her that he could deduct it from the rent was not correct. It was also of opinion that the defendant was not entitled to deduct the money-order commission in respect of the sums which he had sent on account of rent by money-order. The defendant went up in appeal to the Civil Judge. Before the appellate Court the finding that the sum of Rs. 10/- had not been spent on repairs and white-washing with the consent of the plaintiff does not appear to have been challenged. What was urged before the learned Civil Judge so far as the sum of Rs. The defendant went up in appeal to the Civil Judge. Before the appellate Court the finding that the sum of Rs. 10/- had not been spent on repairs and white-washing with the consent of the plaintiff does not appear to have been challenged. What was urged before the learned Civil Judge so far as the sum of Rs. 10/- spent on white-washing and repairs was that the defendant was entitled to claim a credit for the amount as he had spent it after serving a notice as required by Section 7-E of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The finding about the defendants right to claim credit for the money-order commission was also challenged. 3. The learned Civil Judge upheld the defendants contention so far as the money-order commission was concerned. He held that in view of the previous conduct of the parties it appears to have been agreed that the rent could be sent by money-order after deducting the commission. In respect of the amount spent on white-washing and repairs the learned Civil Judge recorded the finding that a notice as contemplated by Cl. (3) of Section 7-E of the Act had been served and that the sum of Rs. 10 could have been spent by the defendant for repairs and white-washing for which he could claim credit. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant had not made any wilful default in payment of rent. 4. The plaintiff has now come up in appeal and questions the correctness of the view taken by the learned Civil Judge in respect of the sum of Rs. 10 alleged to have been spent in repairs and white-washing. The argument put forward is that under Cl. (3) of Section 7-E of the Act the tenant could after giving the necessary notice get the annual white-washing and periodical repairs done only if the landlord was bound to make the same by law, contract or custom. Reliance in support of this contention is placed on the words of Cl. (1) of Section 7-E. The first three clauses of Section 7-E have in this connection to be read together. Reliance in support of this contention is placed on the words of Cl. (1) of Section 7-E. The first three clauses of Section 7-E have in this connection to be read together. They read like this:- "7-E (1) Every landlord shall be bound to keep the accommodation in the occupation of a tenant wind-proof and water-proof and to carry out other repairs which he is bound to make by law, contract or custom. (2) In sub-Sec. (1) repair includes annual white-washing, re-colouring and periodical repairs. (3) If the landlord fails to carry out annual white-washing, re-colouring and periodical repairs, the tenant may by notice require him to carry out the same within one month from the date of the notice. If the landlord fails so to do within the period as aforesaid, the tenant may himself carry out the same at a cost not exceeding one month's rent for the accommodation and deduct the amount from the rent." 5. Even a cursory perusal of the three clauses will show that though the position may be different so far as keeping the accommodation wind-proof and water-proof is concerned, as regards repairs which includes annual white- washing, re-colouring and periodical ' repairs, Cl. 3 could apply only to such repairs as the landlord was bound to make by law, contract or custom. In the present case it was neither pleaded nor proved that the landlord was bound to get annual repairs and white-washing done by any law, contract or custom. On previous occasions the land lord may have agreed to have the repairs and annual white-washing done at her expense but that could not lead to the conclusion that she was bound to get that done every year under any contract or custom. Nor can it be said that she was bound to do that under any law. Cl. (3) of Section 7-E, therefore, did not come into play at all and by serving a notice under that provision it was not open to the tenant to get the white-washing or annual repairs done at the expense of the Landlord and to deduct the amount spent from the rent. The defendant in this case thus took a wholly unjustified stand when he insisted that he was entitled to deduct from the rent the sum of Rs. 10 which he said he had spent in repairs and white-washing of the shop. The defendant in this case thus took a wholly unjustified stand when he insisted that he was entitled to deduct from the rent the sum of Rs. 10 which he said he had spent in repairs and white-washing of the shop. On this ground he deliberately omitted to send the amount in response to the plaintiff's notice. The default in payment of this amount must in the circumstances be held to have been wilful and on that ground the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendant. 6. The appeal in the result succeeds. The decree of the Civil Judge is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. In view, however, of the fact that the point argued here was not raised in the two Courts below there will be no order as to costs of this appeal or of the appeal to the Civil Judge. 7. Leave for appeal is prayed for but is not granted.