JUDGMENT S. Dhavan, J. - This is a landlord's second appeal from the decree of the Additional District Judge, Varanasi reversing that of the Second Additional Munsif, Varanasi and dismissing the appellants suit for the ejectment of the tenant. The plaintiff-appellant Parsottam Sahu alleged that the defendant-respondent Sukhnandan was his sub-tenant but had not paid rent for 24 months in spite of service of a notice of demand. The defendant-respondent denied that he was the sub-tenant of the plaintiff and alleged that he had been admitted to the tenancy by the landlord. He also contended that the service of notice terminating the tenancy was invalid. Both the courts disbelieved the respondents version and held that he was the sub-tenant of the appellant. The trial court passed a decree for his ejectment but the appellate Judge reversed it on the ground that the notice of demand under Sec. 3(1) (a) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act was invalid as it was accompanied by an unconditional notice of termination of the tenancy. The learned Judge relied on my decision in Ram Krishna Prasad v. Mohd. Yahia, 1960 ALJ 579. The landlord has come here in second appeal. 2. This appeal must be allowed. My view in the above case was not approved in a subsequent decision by a Bench of this Court; therefore, the notice of demand cannot be held invalid. Counsel for the respondent tried to argue that notice of service had not been proved. It appears that the notice was sent by the landlord's counsel but returned with the indorsement refused. Counsel argued that even assuming that the respondent refused the notice, there is nothing to show that he knew that the notice was from the landlord. I cannot agree. If a tenant refuses to accept notice from a lawyer who does not sign himself as attorney for the landlord, and the landlord subsequently proves that the notice was sent on his behalf but refused by the tenant, the onus is on the tenant to explain why he refused to accept it, and in the absence of any convincing explanation the court will presume that he had a motive in refusing it and must have suspected that it was a notice from the landlord. If the onus is placed on the landlord to prove that the tenant at the time of refusal was aware that it was a notice from the landlord, it will be imposing on him an impossible burden to discharge, because the tenant has simply to refuse counsels notice and subsequently deny that he knew that it was a notice on behalf of the landlord. 3. In the present case the respondent did not explain why he refused to accept the notice. In fact, he alleged that he never received it but was disbelieved. He cannot turn round now and plead that he did not know that it was the landlords notice he was refusing. 4. The appeal is allowed with costs, the decree of the appellate court is reversed and that of the trial court restored. The appellant shall have his costs from the respondent in all courts. Appeal allowed.