JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for ejectment from a shop, and for recovery of Rs. 1,600/- as arrears of rent and Rs. 248/- as Bhumi Bhawan Kar. The accommodation was admittedly governed by the U.P. Act No. III of 1947 and the grounds for avoiding the bar of section 3 of that Act were default in payment of more than three months rent and sub-letting of one of the three portions of the shop into which it was divided, by the first defendant to the second, without the plaintiff's consent. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment and for recovery of Rs. 1,600/- on account of arrears of rent. The lower appellate court affirmed the decree on appeal. Hence this second appeal by the first defendant. The second defendant had filed a written statement and certain documents, and had also participated in the trial upto the stage of cross examining the plaintiff's only witness (P.W. 1) Vijai Pal Singh, but absented himself at the subsequent stage of the trial and did not lead any evidence, nor did he prove the documents filed by him. He has been impleaded as the fourth respondent, but, wrongly shown as a plaintiff-respondent. Only the first three respondents were the plaintiffs, and were, admittedly, the owners and landlords of the accommodation in suit. 2. The plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, was that they were the owners of the three shops, each one of them having three petitions, which were tenanted by defendant no. 1 on payment of Rs. Only the first three respondents were the plaintiffs, and were, admittedly, the owners and landlords of the accommodation in suit. 2. The plaintiff's case, as set out in the plaint, was that they were the owners of the three shops, each one of them having three petitions, which were tenanted by defendant no. 1 on payment of Rs. 45/- per month as rent ; that without their consent, and illegally and wrongfully, the first defendant had sub-let one of the three shops to the second defendant ; that the first defendant was in arrears of rent since July 1, 1963, which he did not pay in spite of demand made by the notice dated 23rd July, 1969, which was a combined notice of demand and quit and served on the first defendant personally on 30th July, 1969 ; nor did he vacate the shop, instead he sent a false reply ; that rent was not remitted by money order as stated in the reply ; that the first defendant had thus defaulted in payment of rent and was liable to ejectment on that account ; that the first defendant had no right to sub-let the shop but he did sub-let it to the second defendant and on this ground also he was liable to ejectment ; and that the first defendant had not paid Rs. 248/-on account of Bhumi Bhawan Kar. On these allegations the three years rent immediately preceding the date of suit, which was filed on 30th August, 1969, amounting to Rs. 1,600/- and Bhumi Bhawan Kar amounting to Rs. 248/- were claimed against the first defendant, in addition to ejectment of both the defendants from the three shops. There was no specific claim for pendentelite or future damages for use and occupation of the accommodation, although pendentelite and future interest on the amount of Rs. 1600/- claimed as rent, was claimed. 3. 248/- were claimed against the first defendant, in addition to ejectment of both the defendants from the three shops. There was no specific claim for pendentelite or future damages for use and occupation of the accommodation, although pendentelite and future interest on the amount of Rs. 1600/- claimed as rent, was claimed. 3. The first defendant pleaded in reply that he did not sub-let any portion of the shop to the second defendant ; that cloth business was being carried on in one of the portions of the shop since much before the U.P. Act No. III of 1947 came into force, that formerly the business was carried on under the name and style of Shantan Kumar Shambbu Dayal in partnership; that Shambhu Dayal is the first defendant's son; that Shantan Kumar had for some time past colluded with the plaintiffs and had got the suit filed on false and baseless allegations with a view to secure the portion of the shop in question as his own tenancy ; that the plaintiffs and their predecessors have been seeing the cloth business carried on in a portion of the shop, without raising any objection and are accordingly estopped from objecting to the same on any such ground; that it was wholly wrong to say that the first defendant was in arrears of rent from 1st July, 1963 ; that the first defendant was not in arrears of rent for more than three months when the notice dated 23rd July, 1969 was received by him on 30th July, 1969 and he did not commit any default in payment of rent within the meaning of the U.P. Act, No. III of 1947. It was further alleged by the first defendant in his written statement that he used to supply goods from his shop to the plaintiffs and he also paid cash whenever asked for that the total amount of goods supplied and cash paid between 21st February, 1947 to 20th July, 1951 was Rs. 1889/14/3, against which the rent due for the period worked out to Rs. 1,908/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 18/1/9 as due to the plaintiffs ; and that from 21st July 1951 to 20th July, 1969 the amount of goods supplied and cash paid was Rs. 9739/2/3, against which the rent due for that period worked out to Rs. 9,720/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,908/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 18/1/9 as due to the plaintiffs ; and that from 21st July 1951 to 20th July, 1969 the amount of goods supplied and cash paid was Rs. 9739/2/3, against which the rent due for that period worked out to Rs. 9,720/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 9/12/9 ; and thus the total sum due and payable to the plaintiffs by the first defendant on the date when the notice dated 23rd July, 1969 was received amounted to Rs. 27/14/6 ; that, however, on receipt of the said notice dated 23rd July, 1969, the first defendant, in order to save his tenancy, tendered the sum of Rs. 3285/- first to Shri Ajai Pal Singh and Vijai Pal Singh, plaintiffs, at Khair, which is the name of the town where the accommodation is situated, and on their refusal to accept, he tendered the same to Shri Munshi Lal Advocate, who had issued the notice dated 23rd July, 1969 on behalf of the plaintiffs; that one of the plaintiffs, namely, Sri Sripal Singh was not at village Bakner, the home town of the parties, and was reported to be at Dehradoon, but the plaintiffs did not disclose his address and the post-office did not accept a money order, addressed to all the three plaintiffs, nor was the Post Office prepared to accept a money-order for any sum exceeding Rs. 1000/- ; that the defendant could not thus remit the rent by money-orders, and having no alternative, he applied to the court under section 7-C of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 and deposited the sum of Rs. 3,285 on 28-9-1969, which appears to be a typing mistake, for the documentary evidence on the record shows that the application was made on 29th August, 1969 and the tender was passed that very day and the deposit appears to have been made in the State Bank of India on 30th August, 1969, vide Ext. 4, which is a certified copy of the application under section 7-C, and Ext. A-I, which is the original tender by which the deposit of Rs. 3, 285/-was made. The liability for payment of Bhumi Bhawan Kar was denied and it was asserted that the entire suit was liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. Defendant no. 4, which is a certified copy of the application under section 7-C, and Ext. A-I, which is the original tender by which the deposit of Rs. 3, 285/-was made. The liability for payment of Bhumi Bhawan Kar was denied and it was asserted that the entire suit was liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. Defendant no. 2, in his written statement alleged that the accommodation consisted of three shops each of which contained three partitions, and two partitions out of one of the three shops was in his possession, the rest of the accommodation being in the possession of the first defendant ; and that he had been in possession of the same with the knowledge and information of the plaintiffs since a very long time, and the plaintiffs never objected to the same. On the basis of this fact the second defendant pleaded estoppel and acquiescence and claimed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to eject him. On the basis of this fact the second defendant pleaded estoppel and acquiescence and claimed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to eject him. The second defendant added that originally the first defendant used to carry on grocery business in the entire accommodation, but in March, 1953 cloth business was started in partnership with him, i.e , the second defendant, in the name of M/s. Ram Swarup Shanker Lal, of whom Ram Swaroop was the first defendant's sister's husband and Shanker Lal was Ram Swaroop's son ; that in 1957-58 the firm name was changed to Shantan Kumar Shambhu Dayal, of whom Shambhoo Dayal is the first defendant's son and Shantan Kumar is the name of the second defendant, who is also a sister's son of the first defendant ; that in 1959 a Motor Bus was also run by the second defendant in the name of his brother Om Pal in partnership with the first defendant, though the permit was held in the name of a third person Harnarain Sharma ; that in 1965 difference arose between the two defendants and the entire business of motor-bus and cloth, carried on in partnership, was closed down, and since then the second defendant alone has been carrying on cloth business in the name of Dharam Pal Narendra Kumar ; that the licence and registration of the cloth business was also in this name and that the first defendant had nothing to do with it ; that the business was carried on only in the front two partitions of one of the three shops ; and that the second defendant had been paying rent of Rs. 15/- per month to the first defendant, the last payment of rent having been made on 19th April, 1966 for the months of January and February, 1966, and no payment was made thereafter because the plaintiffs had served a notice dated 27th July, 1965 on the defendants. The second defendant claimed that the payment of rent was duly entered in his account-books regularly maintained in the ordinary course of business, and that correct copies of the same were being filed. The second defendant claimed that the payment of rent was duly entered in his account-books regularly maintained in the ordinary course of business, and that correct copies of the same were being filed. In the end, the second defendant claimed that lie was in bonafide possession of two parts of one of the three shops as a sub-tenant, but there being no privity of contract between him and the plaintiffs, no decree for rent or for damages could be passed against him. The second defendant did file 37 documents which included a register containing 55 pages purporting to be a copy of his accounts, but the same does not appear to have been compared by the Munsarim of the trial court with the account-books. None of the documents so filed were proved by the second defendant. 5. The trial court found that rent was due against the first defendant since 1st July, 1963 ; that the first defendant did not tender the rent to the plaintiffs or their counsel, that the deposit under section 7-C of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was not duly made and that the first defendant committed default in payment of rent within the meaning of section 3(I)(a) of U.P. Act No. III of 1947. On the issue of sub-letting the trial court held that the first defendant had sub-let the accommodation to the second defendant without the plaintiff's consent and was liable to ejectment on that ground also. The notice dated 23rd July, 1969 was held to be a valid notice. The claim for Bhumi Bhawan Kar was held to be not proved and the plaintiffs were held entitled to the rent for three years immediately preceding the date of the filing of suit amounting to Rs. 1,600/- with the observation that the first defendant could withdraw the amount deposited by him under section 7-C of the Act. The plaintiffs were also held entitled to recover pendentelite and future damages from the first defendant at the rale of Rs. 45/- per month on payment of requisite court-fees. The lower appellate court has affirmed each one of the said findings and the decree passed by the trial court. 6. Mr. G.P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that the findings of the two courts below on both the questions about default and sub-letting, are erroneous in law. 7. The lower appellate court has affirmed each one of the said findings and the decree passed by the trial court. 6. Mr. G.P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that the findings of the two courts below on both the questions about default and sub-letting, are erroneous in law. 7. It was urged by Mr. Bhargava that the finding that rent was not tendered to the plaintiff's counsel, as alleged by the first defendant is vitiated by a misreading of the statement of Moti Lal D.W. 2, inasmuch as Moti Lal D.W. 2 did not state that rent was tendered on 7th August, 1969. He had said "Ye Bat August San 1969 ki hai." The word Bat appears to have been read as "Sat" by the two courts below, So read the sentence make no sense. I have gone through the statement of Moti Lal D.W. 2. He was the clerk of Shri Ram Chandra Mittal Advocate who was the first defendant's counsel. He stated that Reoti pershad, defendant, had gone to Shri Ram Chandra Mittal Advocate with Rs. 3250/- whereupon he was told to go with the first defendant and have the amount paid to Shri Munshi Lal Advocate, who had served the notice on behalf of the plaintiffs, and that he had thereupon taken the defendant Reoti Pershad with him to Shri Munshi Lal Advocate and that Banwari Lal clerk to Shri Hira Lal Advocate had also accompanied them. Later on Shri Ram Chandra Mittal Advocate had also joined them. The first defendant offered the money but Shri Munshi Lal Advocate refused to accept the same. Both, Shri Ram Chandra Mittal and Shri Munshi Lal Advocates had died. He then stated in this context that this incident was of August, 1969, about two months before the death of Shri Ram Chandra Mittal. On being cross examined on this point, he stated that he could not give the exact date but it was rainy season and that very day the application under section 7-C was prepared. The trial court had also misread the statement of Moti Lal D.W. 2 on this point. The date of tender was crucial inasmuch as the defendant had in his statement on oath stated that the tender was made on 28th August, 1969. The trial court had also misread the statement of Moti Lal D.W. 2 on this point. The date of tender was crucial inasmuch as the defendant had in his statement on oath stated that the tender was made on 28th August, 1969. From a perusal of the findings of the two courts below on this point, it is evident that they are vitiated by a misreading on this part of the statement of Moti Lal D.W. 2. 8. Once it is accepted that the rent demanded by the plaintiffs by the notice dated 23rd July, 1969, served on 30th July, 1969 was in fact tendered by the first defendant on 28th August, 1969, i. e. within one month of the service of the notice upon him, to the plaintiffs' counsel shri Munshi Lal, through whom the notice had been served, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the deposit of rent made on 29th August, 1969 under section 7-C of the U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was valid and it must be deemed, under sub-section (6) of section 7-C of that Act, that the rent was duly paid by the first defendant to the plaintiffs. 9. On the second point with regard to the alleged sub-letting, Mr. Bhargava urged that the plaintiffs could not on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, say that the sub-letting, if any was not with their consent, express or implied. The sub-letting was, he urged, within the plaintiff's knowledge since its very inception, and even after the notice given in the year 1965 complaining of sub-latting, they did not take any action on this ground for more than three years, and it must be presumed that they acquiesced in the same. In support of this submission Mr. G.P. Bhargava relied on the case of Mahabir Singh v. Anand Ram and others AIR 1966 Allahabad 214. In support of this submission Mr. G.P. Bhargava relied on the case of Mahabir Singh v. Anand Ram and others AIR 1966 Allahabad 214. In that case it was held that : "Where the tenancy has lasted for four years with the knowledge of the landlord ; and the rent has been paid by the sub-tenant in the presence of the landlord and on several occasions passed on to him by the tenant, a presumption of acquiescence will arise, a presumption which will be strengthened by the fact that the landlord offered no explanation why he had waited for four years before filing the suit for ejectment on the ground of illegal sub-letting." In the present case, plaintiff Vijai Pal Singh appeared as P.W. 1. In his examination-in-chief he said that defendant no. 2 sat on one of the three shops in suit and was a sub-tenant of defendant no. 1 and further that it was wrong to say that the sub-tenancy was with his or any of his brothers consent. When cross-examined on behalf of the second defendant, P.W. 1 showed full knowledge of the relationship between the pad also admitted serving notice in the year 1965 on the second defendant ; and the fact that the secrties and even of the payment of Rs. 15/- as rent by him to defendant no 1, and defendant was carrying on cloth business in the disputed portion of the shop for the last 15-16 years. The plaintiff Vijai Pal Singh did not offer any explanation as to why he did not take any action for the ejectment of the first defendant for these I ) or 16 years, and at any rate after the notice served in the year 1965. From the own statement of the plaintiff Vijai Pal Singh, it is clear that be had the fullest knowledge of the sub-letting, if any and took no action to eject the first defendant from the shop in suit in spite of such knowledge for a period of 15-16 years. If the sub-letting had been without the plaintiffs' consent and unlawful, it can be presumed that they would not have been slow in instituting the suit for the defendant's eviction as soon as they came to know of it, and at any rate they would not have acted in the manner in which the plaintiffs in the present case did act. Bound as I am by the decision of this Court in Mahabir Singh v. Anand Ram and others (supra), I must hold that it has not been proved that the said portion of the shop in suit had been sublet unlawfully by the first defendant to the second defendant without the plaintiffs' consent. 10. In the result, the appeal must succeed and is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree of the two courts below are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout.