JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal against the decree and judgment dated 19-5-1966 of the II Additional Civil Judged, Aligarh in Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1966 (original suit No. 432 of 1964). The Plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The trial court had dismissed the entire suit but in appeal the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 353.75 P. was decreed but his claim for ejectment was dismissed. This appeal was filed against the decree rejecting the claim for ejectment. Ganeshi Lal Defendant had died. He had been substituted by his heirs. Sri A.N. Bhargava learned Counsel represented them. 2. In this case the facts are that Ganeshi Lal was a tenant of Lala Ram Narain on monthly rent of Rs. 22/-besides water charges. On 5-8-1955 Rs. 300/- had become due against him as arrears of rent. Out of this amount he paid only Rs. 30/- within three years and executed another bond admitting his liability to pay the amount with interest for Rs. 270/- on 24th December, 1958 and then lastly this bond was renewed again on 23-12-1961. It appears that he had paid the monthly rents which accrued after the execution of these bonds but four months' rent had again fallen due upto savan sudi 15 samvat 2021 and Rs. 58 had fallen due as water charges and Rs. 31.20 P. as bhumi and bhawankar. On the bond which was in existence at that time Rs. 347/- was due. The Plaintiff then gave a legal notice for payment of arrears of rent and he demanded the money of the bond also alongwith the other arrears of rent which had fallen due at that time, and which was also for more than three months. The Defendant paid the other arrears of rent within one month from the date of receipt of the notice but he did not pay Rs. 347/- of the money of bond and little more on account of registry charge etc. The total amount of Rs. 353-75 P. thus remained unpaid. 3. The lower appellate court considered the notice having been duly served although it had been refused. It decreed the suit for the entire amount which had fallen due i.e. Rs. 353-75 P. The court fee had been paid on the amount also which had been secured by the bond. The total amount of Rs. 353-75 P. thus remained unpaid. 3. The lower appellate court considered the notice having been duly served although it had been refused. It decreed the suit for the entire amount which had fallen due i.e. Rs. 353-75 P. The court fee had been paid on the amount also which had been secured by the bond. But he dismissed the suit for ejectment holding that the amount which was secured by bond could not be considered to be arrears of rent for more than three months. The only point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether such amount which had been secured by bond can be deemed as arrears of rent or not for the purpose of Section 3(1)(a) of U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the case of Kandaswamy Gounder Vs. K.P. Sivasubramania Iyer, AIR 1963 Mad 16 , on the following passage: Where a tenant executed a promissory note in favour of the landlord for the arrears of rent due and failed to discharge the same within stipulated time. In the absence of any evidence to show that the landlord accepted the promissory note in full satisfaction of rent due, the tenant was liable for eviction under Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (25 of 1955) on the ground of default in payment of rent. 5. The lower appellate court distinguished that authority on the ground that that was the case of negotiable instrument. He also took the view that in paragraph six of the plaint the Appellant himself had admitted that rent upto Chaith Samvat 2021 had been paid and that this shows that the bond was taken as complete discharge of the arrears of rent. My reading of the entire plaint is that only facts were narrated in this paragraph, but it was never admitted by the Plaintiff any where that the bond amounted to the discharge of arrears of rent. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the Division Bench authority of this Court Behari Lal v. Babu Ram 1964 ALJ 458. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the Division Bench authority of this Court Behari Lal v. Babu Ram 1964 ALJ 458. In that case it was held that even the past rent which was subject of an earlier decree and the execution of which had become time barred, can still be considered as arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) for the purpose of fresh suit. The learned Judge took the view that: "The passing of a decree and its execution becoming barred by time is no discharge of the tenant's liability to pay the debt, which a rent in arrear is." 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also placed reliance on the case of Kashi Prasad v. Baleshwari Prasad Garg 1966 AWR 15 in which a learned Judge of this Court took the view that even when arrears of rent could not be realised in court of law having become time barred, the debt is not extinguished and that can be taken to be arrears of rent within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) which the tenant is liable to pay. 8. In my opinion, the case of the Appellant is on a stronger footing. Even the lower appellate court considered it proper to award a decree for the entire amount which had fallen due on bond. The bond was still existing. All that can be said is that it was executed by way of collateral security. Enough time was given to the Respondent to pay past arrears of rent which he failed to do. He thus committed wilful default within meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The suit of the Plaintiff is decreed in toto including the relief for ejectment.