JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The concurrent finding of the Courts below is that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent for the requisite period and had thereby made himself liable for ejectment. There is no dispute about the liability of rent but the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no default and the decree for ejectment was illegally passed. 2. The short point which has been argued before me is that according to the appellant the rate of the rent was Rs. 6 per month only whereas according to the landlord respondent it was Rs. 14 per month. A composite notice of demand and eviction was served on the appellant on 8th January 1966, wherein rent at the rate of Rs. 14 per month had been claimed. It was proved that prior to the service of notice the appellant had remitted at the rate of Rs. 6 per month only but the money order had been refused by the landlord. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant was no longer under any legal obligation to remit the rent again at the rate of Rs. 6 per month after the service of the notice and it was a foregone conclusion that the rent at that rate would not have been accepted by the landlord. Reliance was placed for this proposition on a decision of Dhawan J. in Zareef Khan v. Mukhtar Ahmad, 1964 A.L.J. 148. That is clearly distinguishable. Firstly in that case the landlord had persistently refused to accept the rent on several occasions and secondly the tenant had been actually driven to make the deposit under section 7C of the U.P. Act III of 1967. In those circumstances this court came to the conclusion that there was no further obligation on the tenant to remit the rent after the notice of demand at the same rate and its refusal by the landlord was a device for manufacturing a ground for ejectment of the tenant. The acts of the instant case are quite different. In my opinion there was a clear obligation on the part of the appellant to remit the rent after the service of notice of the payment at least at the rate claimed by him. The acts of the instant case are quite different. In my opinion there was a clear obligation on the part of the appellant to remit the rent after the service of notice of the payment at least at the rate claimed by him. If he had remitted at that rate even if it might not have been accepted by the landlord, he could claim adjustment of that amount and if as a result of adjustment more than three months rent did not remain outstanding there would have been no default so as to incur the liability of eviction. The finding recorded was that even at the rate of 6 per month more than three months rent remained due after the service of notice. In fact, admittedly no rent was paid to the landlord after the service of notice due on the tenant hence a clear case of default was made out and the decree for ejectment was validly passed. 3. There is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs. The stay order dated 21-3-1972 is discharged.