JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - This is a defendant-appellant's second appeal directed against the decree passed by Sri B. C. Jauhari, Additional District Judge, Lucknow, dated 21.1.1970 by which he confirmed the decree passed by Sri C.B. Shah, Munsif South, Lucknow, on 7.3.1967 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant. 2. The defendant-appellant is the tenant of House No. 367, Nishatganj, .Lucknow. The plaintiffs-respondents sued the defendant-appellant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 600/-calculated at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month and for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant on the ground that he had defaulted in making the payment of rent which had accrued due for more than three months inspite of a notice of demand. 3. The defendant-appellant contested the suit, interalia, on plea that the monthly rent fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 3-A of Act III of 1947 was only Rs. 6/- per month and that the defendant-appellant was willing to pay the arrears at that rate. The defendant-appellant also sent a reply to the notice of the plaintiffs-respondents stating therein that the rent due was only at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month, which had been fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 4. The learned Munsif held that there was no agreement between the parties fixing the rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. He also found that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. It is a matter of admission between the parties that no regular suit for fixation of rent was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer fixing the rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month had become final. The learned Munsif took the view that even though the sum of Rs. 25/- per month claimed by the plaintiffs respondents was exaggerated, the defendant-appellant was bound to pay at the rate of Rs. 6/ per month and inasmuch as he did not do so he had committed default so as to attract the provisions of section 3 (1) (a) of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. 6/ per month and inasmuch as he did not do so he had committed default so as to attract the provisions of section 3 (1) (a) of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. The defendant-appellant filed an appeal against the decree of the learned Munsif ejecting him from the accommodation in suit and decreeing the suit for arrears or rent for a sum of Rs. 52.60. The plaintiffs-respondents also filed a cross-objection. Both the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed, where after the instant second in appeal was filed in this Court. 6. The second appeal came up for hearing before Lakshmi Prasad, J., who referred it to a larger Bench. 7. The question for consideration is whether in the circumstances of the present case, the provisions of section 3 (1) (a) of the Act can be attracted so as to make the defendant-appellant liable for ejectment. 8. It is a matter of admission (In fact the notice is clear on that point) that in the notice served by the plaintiffs-respondents upon the defendant-appellant he demanded payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month and the question for consideration is whether this notice was a valid and a bona fide one. It may be pointed out that on earlier occasions the defendant-appellant had tired his best to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month to the plaintiffs-respondents, but they had consistently refused to accept it. On some occasions the rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month had to be deposited by the defendant-appellant in the court of the learned Munsif. It is true that originally the words used in clause (1) to section 3 (1) of the Act were : "that the tenant has wilfully failed to make payment to the landlord of any arrears of rent within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand from the landlord. It is also true that the words "wilfully failed" have now been deleted from this provision. This means that default in payment is sufficient aad "wilful default" is not required. It is also true that the words "wilfully failed" have now been deleted from this provision. This means that default in payment is sufficient aad "wilful default" is not required. The long title of the Act reads : "An Act to provide for the continuance during a limited period of power to control the letting and the rent of residential and non-residential accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom." 9. The preamble of the Act reads :- "Whereas the orders made under clause (bb) of sub rule (2) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules will, in consequence of the revocation of the Proclamation of emergency made under sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935, cease to have effect after September 30, 1916. And whereas due to the shortage of accommodation in the United Provinces it is expedient to provide for the continuance during a limited period of powers to control the letting and the rent of such accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom." 10. The preamble and the long title are a key to the interpretation of the statute. It follows from the long title and the preamble that one of the purposes for enacting the Act was to restrict the eviction of tenants from the accommodation given to them under the Act. In fact the same conclusion follows from section 3 of the Act also, the marginal note of which is "restrictions on evictions. These considerations lead to the conclusion that the intention of the Act is to protect the tenants and to curtail the rights of the landlords which they have under the Transfer of Property Act to eject at will. 11. Before the provisions of section 3 (1) (a) of the Act can be attracted, it must be found as a fact that the tenant has failed to pay to the landlord arrears of rent within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice (service). In the instant case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 3-A of the Act having fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month only (that order had become final) there could be no justification on the part of the plaintiffs-respondents to demand a sum of Rs. 25/- per month from the defendant-appellant by way of rent. 6/- per month only (that order had become final) there could be no justification on the part of the plaintiffs-respondents to demand a sum of Rs. 25/- per month from the defendant-appellant by way of rent. It was open to the plaintiffs-respondents to have filed a regular suit for fixation of rent which admittedly they did not do. They could not have set at naught the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer recorded under the provisions of section 3-A of the Act. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents that the decision of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 3-A of the Act was without jurisdiction or was for any reason capable of being ignored. In these circumstances, the conduct of the plaintiffs-respondents in claiming arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month was not justified at all and the notice was not a valid notice. The notice was also not bona fide for the simple reason that the persistent efforts on the part of the defendant-appellant to pay rent to the plaintiffs-respondents at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month had met continuous failure because of the recalcitrance of the plaintiffs-respondents to receive that rent and that on several occasions rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month had to be deposited by the defendant-appellant in the court of the learned Munsif. 12. The plaintiffs-respondents did not give any answer to the reply of the notice given by the defendant-appellant. Once the order of the Rent Control Eviction Officer under section 3-A of the Act had been passed in all solemnity, the defendant-appellant could not he expected to pay rent at a higher rate than Rs. 6/- per month. Knowing that and also having thought that in the past the plaintiffs-respondents had consistently refused to accept rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month, the defendant-appellant's can not be blamed for not complying with the notice. 13. Sri Raj Kumar Srivastava who has appeared for the defendant-appellant has contended that it would have been just an useless formality to tender rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month to the plaintiffs-respondents because in the past they had consistently refused to accept it and that being the position,under law the cannot be held liable to ejectment. 13. Sri Raj Kumar Srivastava who has appeared for the defendant-appellant has contended that it would have been just an useless formality to tender rent at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month to the plaintiffs-respondents because in the past they had consistently refused to accept it and that being the position,under law the cannot be held liable to ejectment. He has placed reliance upon (Chelikani) Vankatarayanim Garu and others v. Venkata Subadrayamma Jugapathi Bahadur Garu and others, AIR 1923 Privacy Council 26. In this case the Privy Council reproduced the observation of Vice-Chancellor Wigram in the case of Huntar v. Daniel, 4 Haro's Reports 420 to the effect that "the practice of the Courts is not to require a party to make a formal tender where from the facts stated in the Bill or from the evidence, it appears the tender would have been a mere form and that the party to whom it was made would have refused to accept the money," 14. He has also cited before us Gaurishankar Agarwala v. Gangn Prasad, AIR 1949 Patna 192, which was a case under Bihar House Rent Control Order (1942) (clause 13). That provision is similar to section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. Manohar Lal, J. who decided that case placed reliance upon (Chelikani ) Vankatarayanim Garu and others v. Venkata Suhedrayamma Jagapathi Bahadur Garu and others (Supra) and the observation of Sir Mentague Smith in Alexander John Forbes v. Luchmeeput Singh, 14 Madras Indian Appeal 330 and held that non-payment of arrears of rent under the circumstance that the landlord had consistently refused to accept rent would not render the tenant liable to ejectment. 15. The other Patna ruling on which the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant placed reliance is S.K. Shaw and Brothers v. Brij Raj Krishna and another, AIR 1949 Patna 474. That was a case under Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (III (3) of 1947). The learned Judges who heard that case while interpreting the expression "non-payment of rent" occurring in section 11 of the that Act held that it must be so interpreted so as to enlarge the protection against determination of a tenancy enjoyed by a tenant under the ordinary law. 16. The learned Judges who heard that case while interpreting the expression "non-payment of rent" occurring in section 11 of the that Act held that it must be so interpreted so as to enlarge the protection against determination of a tenancy enjoyed by a tenant under the ordinary law. 16. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Narayan v. Benji, AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 36, held that when an excessive or inflated demand is made by the landlord, the tenant even though he does not pay the amount claimed, does not lose the protection given to him by law though he may by way of caution and convenience deposit the amount which he thinks he is liable to pay. 17. It is true that the liability to pay the rent is a recurring liability accruing every month and in a normal case it is the duty of the tenant to either pay or tender to pay the rent due from him. That rule has been invoked even in a case of specific performance of contract in And-eshir H. Mama V. Flora Sassoons, AIR 1928 Privacy Council 208, but the facts of the present case are exceptional. The landlords, plaintiffs-respondents in this case, were not acting bona fide and by serving an illegal notice they were trying to develop a situation in which the defendant-appellant may find himself in default and render himself liable for eviction. We have already pointed out earlier that notwithstanding the admission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondent that against the decision recorded under section 3-A of the Act by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer the, plaintiffs-respondents had not filed a regular suit for the fixation of rent, they insisted upon the defendant-appellant paying an arbitrary sum at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has not been able to show us as to what justification could there be on the part of the plaintiffs-respondents to claim arrears of rent at the rate of Rs 25/- per month when the matter had already been concluded against them by the judgment of a competent authority (Rent Control and Eviction Officer) that the rent was payable only at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. 6/- per month. It has also not been shown to us as to what justifiable ground there was for the plaintiffs-respondents to have answered to the reply given by the defendant appellant to the notice served upon him under section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. 18. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case the following conclusions clearly follows :- 1. That the notice of the plaintiffs-respondents was not a bona fide and a legal notice under section 3 (1) (a) of the Act and for that reason it cannot be treated to be a notice which can render the defendant-appellant liable to eviction for non-compliance of it. 2. That the plaintiffs-respondents had consistently refused to accept rent from the defendant-appellant at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month and that in the circumstances of the case it would have just been a useless attempt on the part of the defendant-appellant to tender any sum at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month which he knew and had every reason to believe would not be acceptable to the plaintiffs-respondents. 19. We may also like to point out the scheme of the Act is to restrict the eviction of the tenants and the Act had to be passed as a measure of social legislation in order to help society to rehabilitate itself and in order to meet the acute shortage of accommodation which was a consequence of World War II. The Act must, therefore, be strictly construed in favour of a tenant in a case of doubt with regard to the language of the statute. We are in agreement with the learned Judges of the Patna High Court that the expression 'arrears of rent' must be read in a manner so as not to set at naught the scheme of the Act. 20. For the reasons mentioned above we allow this appeal, set aside the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow, in which the decree of the learned Munsif has merged, but we direct the parties to bear their own costs.