JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This second appeal by a Plaintiff arises out of a suit to recover arrears of rent and for ejectment. Jagat Narain Mehra filed a suit against Madan Lal, Defendant on these allegations. The Plaintiff is the owner of a certain Kotha and a verandah. The Defendant took the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,120. The Defendant created a lot of nuisance on the premises. The Plaintiff served on the Defendant a notice to quit. The Defendant did not quit in spite of notice. Rent remained in arrear for several months. The Plaintiff, therefore, brought the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 46-10-0 towards arrears of rent and for Defendant's ejectment. The Defendant denied the charge of nuisance. It Was pleaded that the notice to quit was invalid. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by Act III of 1947. 2. The case was tried by the learned I Ind Additional Munsif, Agra. He held that a sum of Rs. 44 was in arrears. He further held that the notice issued by the Plaintiff was defective. He, therefore, gave the Plaintiff a decree for Rs. 44 towards arrears of rent. The Plaintiff's claim for Defendant's ejectment was dismissed. 3. The Plaintiff went up in appeal. The appeal was heard by the learned Civil Judge, Agra. He found that the amount of the decree for arrears of rent had to be slightly enhanced. The Civil Judge, however, agreed with the trial court that, it was not possible to order Defendant's ejectment. The Plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent was decreed in full. But the prayer for Defendant's ejectment was refused. The Plaintiff came before this Court in Second appeal. 4. Initially, the second appeal came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Gurtu. He was inclined to allow the appeal. But he noticed that it would be difficult to allow the second appeal, if the view taken by Mr. Justice Dhawan in 'Ram Krishna Prasad v. Mohammad Yahia, 1960 AWR (HC) 437 : 1960 ALJ 579 were to prevait. Mr. Justice Gurtu thought that Ram Krishna Prasad's case required further consideration. The second appeal has therefore, been referred to a Division Bench for disposal. 5. In a suit for arrears of rent the Plaintiff has to satisfy the court on two points. Mr. Justice Gurtu thought that Ram Krishna Prasad's case required further consideration. The second appeal has therefore, been referred to a Division Bench for disposal. 5. In a suit for arrears of rent the Plaintiff has to satisfy the court on two points. Firstly, the Plaintiff has to serve a notice to quit on the Defendant, as required by section 106, Transfer of Property Act. Secondly, the Plaintiff has to serve on the Defendant a notice of demand, as required by section 3 of UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. We have to consider whether these two requirements of law have been fulfilled in the present case. Exhibit 2 is the notice issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on 11-10-49. The Plaintiff utilised this single notice (Ex. 2) for purposes of section 106, Transfer of Property Act and section 3 of UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 6. In Ram Pratap v. Panna Lal, 1956 ALJ 787 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that, a notice Under Section 106, TP Act can be combined with the notice of demand prescribed by section 3, UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. This position was not seriously disputed by Sri G.P. Bhargava, appearing for the Defendant-Respondent. We now proceed to examine whether the notice, Exhibit 2 dated 11-10- 49 fulfilled the requirements of section 106, TP Act and section 3 of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 7. Exhibit 2 is a lengthy document. The first part of Exhibit 2 relates to the quitting of the premises. In the first part of Exhibit 2 the Plaintiff made it clear to the Defendant that, the Plaintiff was disgusted with the Defendant. The Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to quit the premises on 1-12-49. Sri G.P. Bhargava conceded that, if one were to consider section 106, TP Act by itself, Ex. 2 may be considered as a valid notice Under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. 8. Arrears of rent were mentioned in the latter part of the notice, Ex. 2. By this notice, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to pay off arrears of rent for eleven months. Subject to other objections to be discussed presently, this was clearly a notice of demand. 9. 8. Arrears of rent were mentioned in the latter part of the notice, Ex. 2. By this notice, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to pay off arrears of rent for eleven months. Subject to other objections to be discussed presently, this was clearly a notice of demand. 9. G.P. Bhargava relied upon Ram Krishna Prasad v. Mohammad Yahia, 1960 AWR (HC) 437 : 1960 ALJ 579. In that case also a notice similar to Ex. 2 of the present case was served by the landlord upon the tenant. Mr. Justice Dhavan observed on page 439 thus:- 'But if the notice unconditionally terminates the tenancy and asks the tenant to vacate the accommodation irrespective of whether he pays the arrears or not, it is not a notice of demand as required by section 3(1)(a). It cannot be said of such a notice of demand that it was served with the purpose of giving the tenant a final opportunity to preserve his tenancy, even though it may contain a demand that the tenant should clear off the arrears before he leaves the accommodation, for this is the demand of a creditor and not a landlord, where as the section requires that he should make the demand as landlord'. 10. Balloo Ram Bookseller v. Chhedi Lal, 1960 AWR (HC) 162 : 1960 ALJ 213 is a decision by the same learned Judge. In Balloo Ram's case, 1960 AWR (HC) 162 also the learned Judge Judge observed that, the object of a notice Under Section 3 of UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act is to give the tenant an opportunity to continue the tenancy. 11. The nature of restriction placed by section 3(1)(a) of UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was discussed by the Division Bench in Rom Pratap v. Panna Lal, 1956 ALJ 787. 12. Section 3(1) (a) lays down three conditions- (i) That the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months, (ii) that a notice of demand is issued by the landlord, and (iii) that the tenant does not pay the arrears within one month of the service of the notice of demand. 13. In Bishun Chandra Saxena v. Shushil Chandra Verma, 1960 AWR 46 : 1960 ALJ 70 it was held by another Division Bench of this Court that, the provision of Cl. 13. In Bishun Chandra Saxena v. Shushil Chandra Verma, 1960 AWR 46 : 1960 ALJ 70 it was held by another Division Bench of this Court that, the provision of Cl. (a) of Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act gives this protection to the tenant that, if he happens to fall in arrears for three months he be given a warning about it and be asked definitely to pay the rent before the landlord should determine the tenancy and go to court to evict he tenant. If the tenant pays no heed to such a warning, he must suffer the consequances which a tenant suffers under the ordinary law; the special protection given by the Act is removed; the diffculty in the way of the landlord to institute a suit for ejectment is also removed. 14. The nature of a notice Under Section 3 of UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act is different from that of a notice Under Section 106, TP Act Under Section 106, TP Act, the landlord terminates tenancy by serving a notice on the tenant. section 3 of UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act prescribes certain conditions, one of which has to be fulfilled by a landlord before he files a suit for ejectment of the tenant. 15. The relevant provision of UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act at the material time was as follows:- Section 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 a tenant has wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within ore month of the service upon him of a notice of demand from the landlord..." 16. In order to establish the ground described in Cl. (a) of section 3 of the Act, the landlord has to make out the following paints: (i) a notice of demand, (ii) failure of the tenant to pay off arrears of rent within ore month of the service of the notice, and (iii) wilful default. 17. The learned Civil Judge found that arrears of rent remained unpaid, and that the default was wilful The question for consideration is whether there was a notice of demand, as required by Cl. (a) of section 3 of the Act. 17. The learned Civil Judge found that arrears of rent remained unpaid, and that the default was wilful The question for consideration is whether there was a notice of demand, as required by Cl. (a) of section 3 of the Act. 18. Prima facie there should be no difficulty in treating the notice, Ex. 2, as a notice of demand. But in Ram Krishna Prasad's case 1960 AWR(HC) 437 Mr. Justice Dhavan expressed the view that, if the notice was coupled with a notice to quit, the notice could not be deemed to be a valid notice u/Cl. (a) of section 3 of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act. There is nothing in he language of Cl. (a) of section 3 in support of this contention. All that Cl. (a) of section 3 requires is that, there should be a notice of demand from the landlord. As pointed out in Ram, Pratap v. Panna Lal, 1956 ALJ 787 a notice of demand may not mention the amount at all. It may simply ask the tenant to pay the arrears which he had not paid for the past three months. In the present case the Plaintiff called upon the Defendant to pay off the arrears of rent for eleven months. The notice, Ex. 2 satisfies the test laid down by the Division Bench in Ram Pratap's case 1956 ALJ 787. We are unable to accept the view taken in Ram Krishna Prasad's case 1960 AWR(HC) 437 that, a notice to quit is inconsistent with a notice of demand as contemplated by Cl. (a) of section 3 of UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 19. Upon examining the notice, Ex, 2, we find that is was a notice of demand by the landlord as required by Cl. (a) of section 3 of UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act. As already discussed, Ex. 2 is also a notice to quit, as required by section 106, Transfer of Property Act. The notice, Ex. 2 was valid for both these purposes. 20. It, therefore follows that, the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain a decree for ejectment in addition to the decree for arrears of rent. We allow the second appeal, and modify the decree passed by the lower appellate court. There will be a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs. 2 was valid for both these purposes. 20. It, therefore follows that, the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain a decree for ejectment in addition to the decree for arrears of rent. We allow the second appeal, and modify the decree passed by the lower appellate court. There will be a decree in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs. 46-10-0 on account of arrears of rent, and for ejectment of the Defendant. The Plaintiff-Appellant will get his costs from the Defendant Respondent in the two lower courts. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court Let the record of the case be returned to the trial court immediately.