ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This a Plaintiffs' appeal. The suit was for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. It was alleged that the Defendant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 18/8/- . The Plaintiffs sent a notice of demand on 3-9-1956, demanding payment of arrears of rent due from 2-8-1955 to 2-9-1956, amounting to Rs. 234/8/ from the Defendant. They also terminated the tenancy. It is alleged that the Defendant did not surrender possession or pay the amount, hence the suit. 2. In defence, it was, inter alia, pleaded that the Plaintiff had earlier brought another suit (No. 21 of 1956) for recovery of damages against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant had damaged the property. The Defendant further stated that the Plaintiffs had, sometime back, refused payment of the rent. Consequently, the Defendant had been depositing the rent as and when it became due in the court of the learned Munsif u/s 7-C of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. When suit (No. 21 of 1956) was filed, he deposited the rent and by 19-9-1956,-he had deposited a sum of Rs. 257/14/- in that suit to the credit of the Plaintiff. No amount of rent demanded was in arrears or required payment. He had, therefore not committed any default. 3. This plea has found favour with both the courts below which have dismissed the suit. 4. Clause (a) of Section 3(1) of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act says: That the tenant is in arrears, 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. The tenant is, therefore, under an obligation to pay the arrears of rent to the landlord within one, month of the receipt of the notice. Generally, it is the debtor who seeks out the creditor to pay the debt. That principle has been recognised by Clause (a). Payment has to be made to the landlord. In the present case, the tenant did not make any payment to the landlord directly. He did not make any payment to the credit of the landlord under any directions of the landlord. The previous suit was for recovery of damages. It was not for ejectment or for recovery of the rent of the premises in dispute. In the present case, the tenant did not make any payment to the landlord directly. He did not make any payment to the credit of the landlord under any directions of the landlord. The previous suit was for recovery of damages. It was not for ejectment or for recovery of the rent of the premises in dispute. There was no claim by the Plaintiff for any relief on the ground of non-payment of rent in satisfaction of which the tenant could legitimately make deposits of rent as and when it became due. The Court had passed no orders in the previous suit directing the tenant to deposit in Court the rent as and when it fell due. The tenant seems to have made the payment voluntarily without any affirmative indication from the landlord that he may satisfy the demand made by him by the notice, by depositing the money in court in the previous suit. Simply because the Plaintiff made no objections to the tenant's action of depositing some money in that suit or because the court permitted the money to be deposited in court to the credit of the Plaintiff in that case, could not mean that the tenant had satisfied the demand under the notice dated 3-9-1956. The deposits made in the previous suit could, in the absence of any specific order, at the best, be treated as payments towards the discharge of any decree for damages or that may be passed in that suit. 5. It appears that during the pendency of the present litigation, the original Plaintiff transferred the house to the present Appellant No. 1 as also the right to realise the deposits made in the previous suit. The lower appellate court has taken this also into consideration in coming to the conclusion that the tenant had made payments to the landlord. The transaction of sale by the original landlord is, in my opinion, irrelevant because the sale deed was executed long after the expiry of one month of the service of the notice of demand. Under Clause (a), payment has to be made within one month of the receipt of the notice. Any payment subsequent to the expiry of that period is of no avail. Under Clause (a), payment has to be made within one month of the receipt of the notice. Any payment subsequent to the expiry of that period is of no avail. Consequently, even if it be held that the Plaintiff agreed to appropriate the deposits made in the previous suit towards the amount due as arrears of rent, which was the subject matter of the notice of demand, yet since the event took place after a month of the service of the notice of demand, would not satisfy the requirements of Clause (a). The arrears could not be deemed to have been paid to the landlord within the requisite month. 6. Under the circumstances, I am unable to agree that the tenant had not committed default in complying with the notice of demand He having defaulted, was not entitled to the protection of Section 3 of the UP (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. So far as the arrears of rent is concerned, it has been found that the money was deposited by the Defendant in a previous suit and the landlord had transferred those deposits to the present Appellant No. 1. Consequently, the amount due ft arrears of rent is no longer due from the tenant. The claim for money, therefore, is liable to fail. 7. The appeal, therefore, succeeds in part. The decree is set aside. The suit is decreed for the ejectment of the Defendant-Respondent. The rest of the claim is dismissed. The Plaintiff would be entitled to half his costs of the trial court as well as of the appellate court, but as no one appears or the Respondent, there will be no order as to casts of this appeal.