JUDGMENT Naik, J. - 1. This is a second appeal by the defendant-tenant against whom a decree for his eviction from the suit premises has been passed by the two Courts below. 2. The suit of the plaintiff landlord for eviction of the defendant tenant from the suit premises has been decreed both under clauses (a) and (n) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Facts relevant for purposes of this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. The defendant appellant was inducted into the suit premises as a tenant by Faizul Haq, the father of the plaintiff on or about 1-10-1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. The tenancy was according to the English calendar month beginning with the 1st day of the month and ending with the month of tenancy. On 14-3-1963 Faizul Haq, by a registered deed of sale, transferred the suit premises to his daughter, the present plaintiff. The present plaintiff instituted a suit on 17-11-1965 for eviction of the defendant tenant both under clause (a) as well as under clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. It was, inter alia, alleged that the defendant tenant was in arrears of rent for the period 1-8-1963 to 30-9-1965 and that he had neither paid nor tendered the whole of the said arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent had been served on him by the plaintiff landlord. As the suit is succeeding under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, I need not refer to the allegations relevant for the purpose of a decree under clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. 4. The defence of the defendant appellant was that he was not in arrears of rent. It was alleged that he had made a tender of Rs. 195/- in respect of the rent for the period 1-8-1963 to 31-8-1964, which tender of rent was wrongly refused by the plaintiff landlord. It was, therefore, contended, that as the defendant tenant was not a defaulter, no notice of demand could be served on him within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. 195/- in respect of the rent for the period 1-8-1963 to 31-8-1964, which tender of rent was wrongly refused by the plaintiff landlord. It was, therefore, contended, that as the defendant tenant was not a defaulter, no notice of demand could be served on him within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. In the alternative, it was contended that it had been agreed between him and the then landlord Faizul Haq that the liability of' Faizul Haq to Mohsin Ali Asgar Ali amounting to Rs. 450/- shall be undertaken by the defendant tenant on condition that the amount so paid by him to Mohsin Ali Asgar Ali on behalf of Faizul Haq shall be adjusted towards the future rent of the suit premises. It was also alleged that the notice of demand had not been duly served on him, nor was the notice terminating his tenancy duly served on him. 5. Both the Courts below have rejected all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit. 6. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the defendant tenant appellant that the notices were not duly served on him. The question has been discussed by the learned District Judge in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his judgment and he has, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, come to the conclusion that the defendant tenant was duly served with a notice of ejectment which he had refused to accept. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact based on an appreciation of the evidence on record and no reasons are forthcoming why that finding should be interfered with in a second appeal. 7. It was next contended that the defendant tenant could not be held to be a defaulter within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Ram Krishna Prasad v. Mohammed Yahia. 8. 7. It was next contended that the defendant tenant could not be held to be a defaulter within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Ram Krishna Prasad v. Mohammed Yahia. 8. Under section 12 (1) (a), a ground on which eviction of a tenant can be sought is stated in the following terms: "That the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on h m by the landlord in the prescribed manner." It would be observed that all that this clause requires is that there should be arrears of rent, that such arrears of rent should be legally recoverable from the tenant, and that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord. It is not disputed that there were arrears of rent. It is also not disputed that the arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the defendant. It is further not disputed that the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from the defendant was neither paid nor tendered by him to the plaintiff landlord, inspite of a notice of demand duly served on him by the plaintiff landlord. What is, however, said is that the defendant tenant had vide Ex. D-2 made a tender with respect to the rent for the period 1-8-1963 to 31-8-1964, which tender had wrongly been refused by the plaintiff landlord, and that consequently the notice of demand served on him by the plaintiff landlord was mala fide. In my opinion, if the terms of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act are satisfied, the question of mala fides or bona fides of the plaintiff landlord does not arise. In my opinion, if the terms of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act are satisfied, the question of mala fides or bona fides of the plaintiff landlord does not arise. The aforesaid clause in terms enjoins on a tenant either to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord, and in so far as such payment or tender was not made by the defendant tenant, the plaintiff landlord could seek the defendant tenant's eviction under that clause, notwithstanding her refusal to accept the rent for the period 1-8-1963 to 31-8-1964 sent by money order. No doubt, there are certain observations in Ram Krishna Prasad's case (Supra), which support the contention of the appellant; but I do not know whether the Act in Uttar Pradesh is in pari materia with our Act, and in any case I do not see how a refusal to accept rent by the landlord without lawful excuse can entitle a tenant to refuse to comply with the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act. 9. It was next contended that the defendant tenant was not in arrears of rent because he had paid Rs. 450/- to Mohsin Ali Asgar Ali for and on behalf of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff landlord. The learned District Judge has rightly found that the plaintiff was not bound by the payment which might have been made by the defendant to a third person at the instance of the previous landlord without the concurrence of the plaintiff. It is further significant that in his written statement the defendant has not given the date on which the alleged payment was made by him, so that it is not possible to know whether the alleged payment was made before or after the plaintiff became the landlord of the suit premises. I also agree with the Courts below that any payment made by the defendant tenant to the previous landlord or at his instance could not deprive the plaintiff landlord of the arrears of rent due to her from the defendant tenant from the date she became the owner of the suit premises. 10. I also agree with the Courts below that any payment made by the defendant tenant to the previous landlord or at his instance could not deprive the plaintiff landlord of the arrears of rent due to her from the defendant tenant from the date she became the owner of the suit premises. 10. In view of my affirming the findings of the Court below on the ground contained in clause, (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, it is not necessary for me to discuss whether the decree, which has been granted to the plaintiff landlord under clause (n) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act, was also justified. 11. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.