JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This is tenant's petition. It is directed against orders passed by Courts below decreeing suit for ejectment of the petitioner from a house. 2. These are the facts :- The petitioner was a tenant and the respondent No. 1, the landlady owned house in suit. The landlady brought a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that despite a composit notice of demand and termination of tenancy which was duly served on the tenant, the latter neither paid the arrears of rent demanded nor vacated the house and hence the suit. 3. The defence of the petitioner was that he was not in arrears of rent. It was alleged that when by means of a notice dated 26.11.1971 the landlady demands the arrears of rent from the tenant for the period 1.11.1969 to 30.11.1971 in compliance with the demand the tenant remitted a sum of Rs. 675/- to the landlady by money order on 30.12.1971. The landlady, however, refused to accept the money order when it was tendered to her. Subsequently, the landlady sent another notice dated 11.1.1972 demanding the sum of Rs. 702/- as arrears of rent for the same period, i.e. 1.11.1969 to 30.11.1971 as well as rent for the month of December, 1971. The demand was for Rs. 702/-. The defendant again sought to pay this amount within one month of the receipt of the notice personally to the landlady but the latter refused. 4. Both the Courts below have found as a fact that the petitioner did send the amount of Rs. 675/- as demanded by the landlady by her first notice dated 26.11.1971 within one month of the receipt thereof and that the landlady refused to accept the same when tendered to her by the post office. The ground upon which the suit has been decreed against the petitioner is that when the petitioner was served with the second notice dated 11.1.1972 he did not again tender the amount demanded thereunder. The revisional Court has placed reliance on a decision of this Court Ram Babu v. Prasadi Lal, in taking the view that even if the amount of Rs. 675/- was tendered to the landlady and the landlady had refused the same, the tenant was again obliged to send the rent when it was demanded by the landlady the second time. The revisional Court has placed reliance on a decision of this Court Ram Babu v. Prasadi Lal, in taking the view that even if the amount of Rs. 675/- was tendered to the landlady and the landlady had refused the same, the tenant was again obliged to send the rent when it was demanded by the landlady the second time. The view taken by the Court below is manifestly unsustainable in law. The case reported in 1964 Allahabad 192 was expressly overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Babu v. Prasadi Lal, AIR 1964 Allahabad 192 (DB). The Full Bench held by a majority that where a tenant remits rent by money order and the amount remitted covers rent for a particular month and the landlord refuses to accept the same, the tenant cannot be said to be in arrears in view of Section 3(a) of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947. Applying the dictum of the Full Bench, it is obvious that the petitioner could not be treated as a default for the period 1.11.1969 to 31.11.1971, in view of the fact that the landlady had refused to accept the rent for that period when tendered by money order. That being so, the fact that the tenant did not remit the sum of Rs. 702/- when demanded by the second notice of the landlady to accept the sum of Rs. 675/-. The petitioner was, therefore, not in arrears for more than three months. He could, therefore not be ejected under Section 3(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947. The decrees passed by the Court below, therefore, are manifestly unsustainable in law so far as the ejectment of the petitioner is concerned.