JUDGMENT Shukla, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The plaintiff Munna Lal (minor) sued through his father and guardian Ram Gopal Agarwal for ejectment of defendant No. I Mani Ram. The plaint case was that defendant No. I was the tenant of Shop No. 142 Mohalla Parwaran. Jhansi, on a rent of Rs. 25/- per month, that the said defendant had defaulted in the payment of rent for more than three months and also that he had kept a sub-tenant namely Ram Sewak, defendant No. 2, in shop No. 141, that the defendant No. 1 had fallen in arrears of rent since 5.8.1961 (the date of purchase of the shop by the present plaintiff), that he gave a notice of demand and ejectment dated 06.12.1961, which was served on the defendant No. 1 on 26-12-1961 but he neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the accommodation. Hence, the suit for ejectment of the defendant Mani Ram from shop No. 142 and for recovery of Rs. 148/- being arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. 2. The defendant Mani Ram alone contested the suit. He contended that he was the tenant of both the shops Nos. 141 and 142, that they formed two distinct premises and their rent was Rs. 151/- and Rs. 10/- per month respectively, that be bad tendered rent to the plaintiff but he refused to accept the same without any lawful excuse, that he had deposited the said amount under Section 7-C of the Rent Control and Eviction Act in the court of Munsif, Jhansi and so there was no default on his part. He further stated that on the date of the suit more than three months' rent was not due to the landlord. He denied that he had done any sub-letting. It may be noted that the plaintiff's counsel in his statement under Order 10, Rule 2. Civil Procedure Code gave up the plea of sub-tenancy and so the suit proceeded on the basis of default in payment of rent. The suit for ejectment was dismissed by both courts, and hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. 3. It may be noted that the plaintiff's counsel in his statement under Order 10, Rule 2. Civil Procedure Code gave up the plea of sub-tenancy and so the suit proceeded on the basis of default in payment of rent. The suit for ejectment was dismissed by both courts, and hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. 3. The short point which has to be decided in this case is as to whether the defendant No. 1 had defaulted in payment of rent so as to incur the liability of his eviction under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The concurrent finding of both the courts below is that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month, which has not been challenged in appeal before me. 4. It is necessary to notice a few salient facts in order to appreciate as to whether the defendant No. 1 was in default and whether the various offers of rent as alleged by him were made and also the amounts remitted by him through money order had the effect of liquidating or reducing the amount of arrears of rent so as to exonerate him from the liability of ejectment. The respondent No. 1 namely Mani Ram came in the witness box and deposed that even prior to the actual purchase of the shop by the plaintiff on 5-8-1961 Ram Gopal through whom the suit has been filed had started realising rent from the various tenants who occupied different portions of the property. That allegation was not controverted by Ram Gopal. Mani Ram added that he personally offered rent to Ram Gopal but the latter declined to accept the same. Probably that offer related to the period anterior to the actual purchase of the property. However, I proceed on the assumption that no such offer was made prior to 5.8.1961 nor is any such offer necessary for the purpose of deeding this case. It is the conduct of the parties after 5.8.1961 which is material for the purpose of deciding the liability of the respondent No. 1 5. The first document on which the defendant No. 1 relies in this connection is the money order (Exhibit A-3t) dated 12-8-1961 whereby he admitted to have sent a sum of Rs. It is the conduct of the parties after 5.8.1961 which is material for the purpose of deciding the liability of the respondent No. 1 5. The first document on which the defendant No. 1 relies in this connection is the money order (Exhibit A-3t) dated 12-8-1961 whereby he admitted to have sent a sum of Rs. 20/- purporting to be rent for the period 15 6 1961 to 14-8-1961 to Ram Gopal but this was refused by the addressee on 18 8-1961. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 made a deposit of Rs. 20/- on 23-8-1961 in the court of the Munsif, Jhansi, on the allegation that the rent had been refused by the landlord. On 21-11-1961 the defendant No. 1 made another deposit under Section 7-C of the Rent Control and Eviction Act and of a sum of Rs. 30/- being rent for a subsequent period. So far as these deposits are concerned, there is yet another circumstance which is of great significance. By his application dated 16-12-1961 (Exhibit A-23) the defendant No. 1 himself withdrew the proceedings initiated by him under Section 7-C by the application dated 23-8-1961. It was averred in that application that the deposit in the court of the Munsif had been made under the erroneous belief that Ram Gopal was the owner of the property but later it was discovered that his son Munna Lal was the owner of the property and hence the deposit was not correctly made and should be deemed to be withdrawn. Presumably that application was allowed, though no such order has been actually brought to my notice. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 again remitted a sum of Rs. 20/- being rent for the period 5-11-1961 to 4-1-1962 by money order (Exhibit A-17) dated 20-9-1961. The recitals made in Exhibit A-17 are important. They are as under :- "Rupees 20 rent of shop No. 142 Parwaran, Jhansi for the period 5-11-1961 to 4-1.1962 being remitted. Prior rent of 3 months has been deposited in, court of Munsif, Jhansi, under Section 7-C on your refusal to accept M.O. Kindly accept, otherwise it, would be deposited in court", In this connection the communication made by the defendant No. 1 Mani Ram in his previous money order Exhibit A-30 dated 12-3-1961 may also be noted. Translated into English it will read as follows :- "Remitting two months' rent of shop No. 142 Rs. Translated into English it will read as follows :- "Remitting two months' rent of shop No. 142 Rs. 20/- from 15-6-1961 to 14-8-1901 Mohalla Parwaran Gandhi Road, Jhansi. Accept it and I am the real tenant of shop No. 141 also in which my partner Ram Sewak sits on my behalf. So give receipt of that shop also in my name and realise rent from Ram Sewak at the rate of Rs. 7/- per month. 6. It will be clear from the above facts that while the notice of demand was served on the defendant No. 1 on 26-12-1961 the various remittances by money order as well as the deposits under Section 7-C were made prior to it and the question, therefore, arises as to whether the defendant No. 1 was entitled to be given credit for these various deposits and remittance so as to treat him as a non-defaulter. The preliminary fact which has to be noted is as to whether more than three months rent as alleged in the notice dated 6-12-1961 was due from the defendant No. 1 or not. The arrears stated in the notice relate to the period 5-8-1901 to 6-12-1961. The period covered by the money order (Exhibit A-30) dated 12-8-1961 was 15-6-1961 to 14-8-1961. The respondent's contention was that since the landlord had refused the rent tendered by the money order, the defendant No. 1 was entitled to deposit the amount under Section 7-C of the Rent Control and Eviction Act which he did on 23-8-1961. Under sub-section (1) of that section a tenant may deposit rent in the court of the Munsif when a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid by him in respect of the accommodation occupied by the tenant. Sub-section 6 clearly provides that in any case v here a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to the landlord. So if the contesting defendant had made a valid deposit under Section 7-C he could not be deemed to be a defaulter for the period mentioned in the notice and the effect of the deposit made by the application dated 23-8-1961 (Exhibit A-22) would be to discharge the arrears for the period 15-6-1961 to 14-8-1961. So if the contesting defendant had made a valid deposit under Section 7-C he could not be deemed to be a defaulter for the period mentioned in the notice and the effect of the deposit made by the application dated 23-8-1961 (Exhibit A-22) would be to discharge the arrears for the period 15-6-1961 to 14-8-1961. If the landlord refuses to accept rent tendered by a tenant, the latter is under no obligation to persist in making repeated tenders and is entitled to make the deposit under Section 7-C in future when the rent becomes due. 7. It was, however, contended on behalf of the appellant that the deposit made by Exhibit A-22 dated 21-8-1961 under Section 7-C can be treated as valid only when it is established that there was a valid offer made to the land-lord prior to it was refused. It was submitted that the money order dated 12-8-1961 (Exhibit A 30) was addressed to Ram Gopal who was not the owner of the property and consequently the remittance by money order was not a valid offer. I am unable to accept this contention. It is admitted that Ram Gopal is the father and guardian of Munna Lal minor who was the owner of the property. In fact, the suit itself was filed by Munna Lal through his guardian Ram Gopal. I have already observed that Mani Ram stated that even prior to the date of the purchase Ram Gopal had taken possession of the property and started making realisation of rent from the tenants. That statement remained uncontroverted by Ram Gopal. In these circumstances I find it difficult to accept the contention that the tender made to Ram Gopal was not a tender made to the landlord. The definition of "landlord" in Section 2(c) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act is given as under :- "Landlord" means a person to whom rent is payable by a tenant in respect of any accommodation and includes the agent, attorney, heir or assignee (of such person)." There cannot be the least doubt that Ram Gopal was acting as the agent of the landlord namely Munna Lal and realising rent on his behalf and an offer made to him was an offer made to the landlord. In fact, a payment to a minor could not have been a valid payment and the payment could be made to him only through his guardian. See Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, I.L.B. 30 Calcutta 539. That is precisely what the defendant No. 1 earnestly endeavoured to do. He did the best that was possible in the circumstances to liquidate the arrears and if the amount remitted by him was refused, there was no lawful excuse for it. The plaintiff could not be allowed to take shelter behind the technical plea that the money order was not addressed to Ram Gopal in his fiduciary capacity as guardian and consequently the remittance was not made to the landlord within the meaning of that term as used in the Rent Control and Eviction Act. In my opinion it is a too technical objection which cannot be upheld. Where it is established on facts that a person acted as the agent of the minor, the mere omission to mention the character of the addressee as the guardian would not vitiate the payment. 8. The next deposit under Section 7-C was made on 21-11-1961 by paper No. 12-C, which was for a sum of Rs. 30/- for the period 5.8-1961 to 4-11-1961. For the reasons already stated, this was also a valid deposit made by the defendant No. 1 and it had the effect of substantially reducing the arrears of rent alleged in the notice of demand with the result that more than three months 'rent could not be said to be due. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, relied on Exhibit-5 which was an application dated 16-12-1961 made by Mani Ram defendant No. 1 in the court of the Munsif, Jhansi, praying that the amount of Rs. 20/- as rent had been wrongly deposited by him earlier under Section 7-C under the mistaken impression that Ram Gopal was the proprietor of the shop but he learnt through a notice of the plaintiff dated 13-9-1961.(Exhibit A- 1) that the real owner of the shop was Munna Lal, hence the previous application about the deposit under Section 7-C be dismissed and the amount of Rs. 20/- actually deposited be returned to Mani Ram. 20/- actually deposited be returned to Mani Ram. My attention was also invited to paragraph 20 of the written statement where in a similar plea was taken by the defendant No. 1 i.e. his mistaken belief that Ram Gopal was the proprietor of the shop. On the basis of these facts it was argued that on the own pleadings of the defendant No. 1 the deposit under Section 7-C was not a valid deposit and consequently be could not avail of the same for saving himself from eviction. In my opinion, the pleadings and the recitals in the application dated 16-12-1561 (Exhibit-5) cannot be in any case more than admissions and an admission can be proved to be wrong. There can be no estoppel against law and if it is found that an admission was made under a misapprehension of law, that would not estop the contesting defendant from later taking a stand that the deposit under Section 7-C was valid in law. 9. The last step taken by the respondent No. 1 was yet another earnest attempt to pay off the arrears and not render himself liable for ejectment. On 20-12-1961 he remitted a sum of Rs. 20/- by a money order (Exhibit A-17) which was rent for the period 5-11-1961 to 4-1-1962. This money order was addressed to Ram Gopal as the guardian of Munna Lal and that was again refused. The effect of illegal refusal of rent remitted by money order is tantamount to its payment by the tenant. Consequently, if the money order dated 20-12-1961 was illegally refused by the addressee, the effect would be to liquidate one month's rent covered by the period of notice and also rent for some period subsequent there to. Therefore, if on the date of notice i.e. 26-12-1961) the alleged arrears had been reduced even by a month short of three months, the tenant would not be liable for ejectment and no right would accrue to the landlord to evict him under section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. Rent Control Act. Therefore, if on the date of notice i.e. 26-12-1961) the alleged arrears had been reduced even by a month short of three months, the tenant would not be liable for ejectment and no right would accrue to the landlord to evict him under section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. Rent Control Act. It was held in Indrasani v. Din Ali, 1968 A.W.R. 167 (F.B.) that where a tenant remitted rent by money order and the amount covered rent for a particular month and the landlord refused to accept the same, the tenant could not be said to be in arrears in respect of that month within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act. A contrary view taken in Joti Prasad v. Sholamber Nath, AIR 1964 Allahabad 192 (D.B.). was overruled. 10. The contention of the appellant, however, with regard to Exhibit A-17 was that it was a conditional offer made to the landlord and he was within his rights to refute the same because acceptance of such tender implied acceptance of the conditions prejudicial to him. He relied on Kishori Lal v. Triloki Nath, 1962 A.L.J. 360. The question, however, arises as to whether the amount remitted by that money order can be said to be a conditional offer. I have already quoted the recitals made therein. It was submitted that the tenant had alleged in the communication addressed to him in the money order coupon that he should be treated as a tenant of the other shop as well and receipt be issued in his name. It was said that' this was an allegation wholly unacceptable to the landlord and consequently he was justified in refusing the money order. However, it appears to me that the proposal contained in the said money order would not make the payment a conditional offer. The conditions or the proposals made in the offer must relate to the property in dispute. Any other allegation relating to a different property altogether must be treated as something extraneous to the controversy and may either be ignored or suitably replied to. On the basis of an irrelevant allegation made in the offer with regard to a property which is not the subject-matter of controversy between the parties, the landlord cannot refuse to accept a tender. 11. On the basis of an irrelevant allegation made in the offer with regard to a property which is not the subject-matter of controversy between the parties, the landlord cannot refuse to accept a tender. 11. Thus, I may sum up my conclusions as follows :- (i) That an offer of rent made by a tenant to the father-guardian of the minor-landlord is an offer made in law to the landlord himself within the meaning of that term as used in the U. P. Rent Control Act ; (ii) That rent remitted to the father in his name without mentioning in the money, order coupon his capacity as the guardian does not derogate from his position as the agent of the minor-landlord. He will he treated in law as the landlord to whom the offer of rent was validly made by the tenant; and (iii) That if the objectionable proposal contained in the offer of rent in the money order coupon relates to a different property and not the one in dispute, it is wholly redundant and does not make the offer conditional qua the Property in suit. The landlord is not justified in refusing such offer of rent as being conditional. 12. There can be therefore, no doubt in the present case that the appellant refused to accept the rent tendered to him by Exhibit A-17 without any lawful justification and consequently the respondent No. 1 could not be held to be in default for more than three months' rent when the notice was served on him. The effect of the successive refusals made by Ram Gopal on one excuse or the other was that the payment of rent must be deemed to have been duly made by the respondent No. 1 for the relevant period so as to discharge him of the liability with regard to the alleged arrears. 13. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.