JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a landlord's second appeal against a decree for ejectment. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this case are women. The Plaintiff filed a suit for the ejectment of the Defendant on the ground that she had wilfully failed to pay the rent, had been guilty of having created a nuisance and had caused substantial damage to the accommodation by various acts. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the Plaintiff's appeal was also dismissed. She has come to this Court in second appeal. 2. Mr. K.C. Saksena, Learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed the decision of the appellate court on the following grounds: First, he pointed out that the tenant had paid on demand the arrears of rent by cheque crossed, "account payee". The landlord was not bound to accept payment by cheque and returned it to the tenant. There was no other payment within one month of the receipt of notice by the tenant and, therefore, she was guilty of wilful default. I am not impressed by this argument. The facts are slightly different from Learned Counsel's version. It appears that a notice of demand was sent by the landlord on 14-9-1953. It was conceded by Learned Counsel that it could not have been received by the tenant on the same day. She sent a reply on 12-10-1953 enclosing a crossed cheque for Rs. 300. Learned Counsel admitted that this cheque was received on the next day that is 13-10-1953. Instead of returning the cheque forthwith and asking for cash payment, the landlord kept it till 31-10-1953 when her counsel wrote a letter to the tenant intimating that payment by cheque was not acceptable. On there facts it is not possible for me to hold that the tenant was guilty of wilful default. It appears to me that the landlord deliberately kept the cheque with herself and waited till the statutory period of one month had expired. If she had intimated to the tenant that she wanted cash payment it is likely that the latter would have paid her in cash. She still had 2 or 3 days left. 3. Learned Counsel argued that payment by cheque is no payment. I am not prepared to accept the argument in such broad terms. If she had intimated to the tenant that she wanted cash payment it is likely that the latter would have paid her in cash. She still had 2 or 3 days left. 3. Learned Counsel argued that payment by cheque is no payment. I am not prepared to accept the argument in such broad terms. Whether payment by cheque is treated as cash payment or not depends upon the custom of the locality and the previous practice of the parties. If the tenant had been making payment by cheque and the landlord had been accepting if, the tenant is entitled to think that payment by cheque will be treated by landlord as cash payment. Learned Counsel for the Respondent informed me that there was no evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff that he had refused payment by cheque on previous occasions. The tenant cannot be adjudged a defaulter merely because she made a payment by cheque which is the usual method of payment in these days among large sections of people. I, therefore, think that the finding of the appellate court absolving the tenant of any default in the payment of rent is quite correct, 4. Mr. Saksena then argued that the finding of the appellate court on the question of nuisance is erroneous. Here again, I do no agree. The two acts attributed to the tenant which, according to the landlord, constitute nuisance are that he tethered a cow in the common passage, and has started a children's school in his house, as a result of which the landlord, who 10 is living in a portion of the same accommodation, and the other tenants are being inconvenienced. I do not think that the tethering of a cow in a common passage is in the peculiar conditions of Indian society a nuisance. Both the landlord and the tenant are Hindus. It is a common sight in a street inhabited by Hindus that cows are tethered in front of houses, and even in common passages shared by several occupiers. If any person considers the presence of cows a nuisance, he or she is hardly likely to find any suitable place for his or her residence in this country The law of nuisance in India cannot be applied in defiance of social, economic and religious conditions. 5. Mr. If any person considers the presence of cows a nuisance, he or she is hardly likely to find any suitable place for his or her residence in this country The law of nuisance in India cannot be applied in defiance of social, economic and religious conditions. 5. Mr. Saksena then contended that the tenant had started a school in the accommodation occupied by her and the presence of children was a nuisance to the landlord and the other residents. It is not possible for me to take this argument seriously. There is no covenant by the tenant that he will not tether cows nor run a children's school in his house. No particular acts by the children were alleged, apart from the occasional plucking of a flower or two. I must, therefore, presume that the landlord considers the very presence of children in the house a nuisance, If she is allergic to the presence of the children she must be a peculiar person, but this is hardly a ground for ejecting the tenant simply because she has started a children's school in the house. The idiosyncrasies of an abnormal person cannot be taken into account when considering whether any particular act amounts to a nuisance in law All normal people will agree that little children with all their restlessness make life interesting and spread sunshine (metaphorically speaking) all around them. "Suffer little children to come unto me and prevent them not, for theirs is the Kingdom of God." 6. These were the only two points urged before me. I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the courts below. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case I direct the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.