JUDGMENT K.B. Asthana, J. - The only question that arises for determination in this appeal by the defendant-tenant is whether a composite notice, served by the plaintiff-landlord on the defendant-tenant, terminating the tenancy on the expiry of 30 days from the receipt thereof and demanding the arrears of rent within one month of the service of the notice will amount to a notice in writing to the tenant signifying the willingness of the landlord to accept the rent which becomes due in respect of the accommodation let out within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 7C of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Admittedly the defendant-appellant was a tenant of the plaintiff-respondent in the accommodation in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 9/- for a number of years. In 1964, it appears the plaintiff-landlord refused to accept the rent lawfully offered to him by the defendant tenant. Thereupon proceedings under Section 7C of the Act were instituted by the defendant-tenant and ultimately the learned Munsif having jurisdiction passed an order accepting the deposit and the defendant-tenant in pursuance of that order continued to make deposits of subsequent rent. The last but one deposit was made by the tenant on 27.3.1968 of rent accrued upto March, 1968 in the Court of the Munsif under Section 7C of the Act. By a notice dated 10.4.1969, served upon the defendant-tenant on 11.4.1969, the plaintiff-landlord terminated the tenancy and demanded payment of arrears of rent within one month of the receipt thereof by the defendant-tenant. On 3.5.1969, that is within one month of the receipt of the said notice the defendant-tenant deposited the rent from April, 1968 to May, 1969, in the Court of the Munsif under Section 7C of the Act. On 24.7.1969 the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for eviction of the defendant-tenant and from recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the allegation inter alia that the defendant having failed to pay the arrears of rent within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand, was liable to be evicted and the suit for eviction was not barred by Section 3 of the Act. The defence plea was that all the rent due having been deposited under Section 7C of the Act in the Court of the Munsif within one month of the receipt of the notice the defendant tenant could not be said to have failed to pay the arrears of rent demanded and the suit of the plaintiff-landlord was barred by Section 3 of the Act. It is not necessary to refer to the other pleadings of the parties as nothing turns upon them in this appeal. 3. The two Courts below took the view that the defendant-tenant could not take advantage of any deposit made by him under Section 7C of the Act after the receipt of the notice of demand served upon him by the plaintiff-landlord, as the demand made therein would be a notice in writing signifying to the tenant the willingness of the landlord to accept rent. I think the Courts below have erred in holding that a composite notice demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy would be a notice in writing to the tenant signifying the willingness of the landlord to accept the rent which becomes due within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 7C of the Act. 4. It would be seen that under the scheme of sub-section (1) of Section 7C the tenant is vested with a right to deposit such rent which the landlord refuses to accept when lawfully tendered and then he has a further right to continue to deposit subsequent rent which becomes due. This right to continue to deposit subsequent rent which becomes due, ensures to the tenant till such time the landlord signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept, the subsequent rent, which becomes due. Thus the notice in writing contemplated under sub-section (1) is the willingness of the landlord intimated to the tenant to accept subsequent rent which becomes due, that is the rent accruing in future. The intention of this sub-section is that a tenant must hear in writing from the landlord that the latter is willing to accept the rent which becomes due. The intention of this sub-section is that a tenant must hear in writing from the landlord that the latter is willing to accept the rent which becomes due. The scheme under sub-section (1) postulates that all the rent which had already fallen due had been deposited under Section 7C by a tenant who in exercise of the right to deposit subsequent rent that is the rent accruing after the initial deposit will be depositing the same from time to time. Thus the willingness of the landlord contemplated is for future rent. When a notice in writing is sent by the landlord to the tenant signifying his willingness to accept the rent which has already fallen in arrears it would not mean that he is willing to accept rent which will accrue in future. To be of real benefit to the landlord and the tenant the rent which will become due in future also must be signified to be acceptable to the landlord. In my judgment only that notice in writing signifying the willingness of the landlord to accept rent would be the proper notice under sub-section (1) of Section 7C which informs a tenant that all future rent would also be acceptable by the landlord and the tenant need not therefore take recourse to the machinery of law for depositing it in Court. Viewed from this angle a notice merely demanding payment of arrears of rent accompanied by termination of tenancy is nothing but a mere demand of what the tenant had not paid to the landlord and cannot be construed or interpreted signifying the willingness of the landlord to receive future rent as the tenancy stands terminated and there will be no occasion for accrual of future rent. I am unable, therefore to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that as no specific form of the notice has been prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 7C a mere intimation to the tenant that the arrears of rent be paid would signify the willingness of the landlord to accept all the rent accordingly in future on the basis of a subsisting lease that is on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The termination of the tenancy by notice destroys that relationship. The termination of the tenancy by notice destroys that relationship. Therefore, a composite notice cannot be construed as signifying the willingness of the landlord to accept the rent becoming due as explained by me above under the scheme of sub-section (1) of Section 7C of the Act. 6. It having been found that the plaintiff-landlord had not signified by a notice in writing to the defendant tenant his willingness to accept the rent within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 7C of the Act and all the arrears of rent having been deposited in the Court of Munsif under Section 7C of the Act, the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 7C will come into play and the rent would be deemed to have been duly paid by the defendant tenant to the plaintiff landlord within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand served upon the defendant-tenant, see Mohammad Bashir v. Azizul Qadar, 1966 ALJ 677 and Israr Ahmad v. Sant Ram, 1971 A.W.R. 401. The result is that the suit of the plaintiff landlord is barred by Section 3 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Court below is set aside and the plaintiff's suit for all the reliefs claimed in plaint stands dismissed with costs.