Judgment 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for eviction of the respondent from a building was dismissed by the trial court and on appeal preferred by the appellant the lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. 2. Originally the building, when the tenancy of the respondent was created, belonged to the three brothers. According to the appellant there was a partition between the three brothers in August, 1969 and the suit property was allotted in the share of Misbahur Rahman, Misbahur Rahman leased the property to the appellant on 18th of October, 1969 and a notice of the same was given to the respondent by the constituted attorney of Misbahur Rahman under registered post. The notice was received on behalf of the respondent on 12th of October, 1970. On 23rd of July, 1971 the property was transferred by Misbahur Rahman to the appellant. The respondent failed to pay the rent of the building from November, 1969. Therefore, the suit was filed on 14th of July, 1973 praying therein for eviction and also for arrears of rent from June, 1970, i.e. for three years prior to the date of filing of suit. 3. In the written statement the respondent stated that he had paid the rent up to 1972 to Masudur Rahman one of the co-owners of the property and when he came to know that the appellant had become sole owner of the same he tendered the rent for January, 1973 to him. The appellant refused the same and. therefore, the rent was remitted by Money Order and the respondent continued to remit the same. He denied the receipt of notice dated 20th October, 1969. 4. Both the courts below have held that the notice sent on 1st of May, 1973 was not served on the respondent and that the rent upto December, 1972 was validly paid by the respondent. The rent from January, 1973 and all subsequent months was validly remitted by him. On these findings, the suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal was also dismissed. 5. Mr. The rent from January, 1973 and all subsequent months was validly remitted by him. On these findings, the suit was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal was also dismissed. 5. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the finding of the court below that the notice dated 1st of May, 1973 was not validly served on the respondent cannot be sustained in the eye of law inasmuch as since the notice was correctly addressed, pre-paid and sent by registered post, it shall be presumed that the same was received on behalf of the addressee, i.e. the respondent. According to the appellant since the notice was sent to the respondent with correct address, pre-paid and by registered post and as there was no denial by the respondent. D. W. 7, that the address given on the envelope was not the correct address, the courts below ought to have drawn the presumption against him and should have held that the notice was received by a person on behalf of the respondent, more so when that the respondent examined himself after acknowledgement of that notice was brought on record as Exhibit 3/A. It appears from perusal of the record that when the respondent was inducted in the building by the three brothers including the appellant the parties entered into an agreement and that was marked as Exhibit E. The address of the respondent given therein is Upper Bazar, Ranchi. In the plaint the address of the respondent is C/o. M/s. Bengal Potteries Shop, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. Therefore, according to the appellant the address of the respondent was at Upper Bazar, Ranchi. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the main road address as given on the envelope of which Exhibit 3/A is the acknowledgement was also correct address. It is true that a person may have more than one address and if it is so then a notice sent to that person at any of the addresses under registered post may be presumed, in law, to have been validly served on him. But in such a case, there must be evidence that that person has more than one address. In this case the appellant did not state in his evidence that the notice dated 29th Sept., 1970 was sent to the correct address of the respondent. But in such a case, there must be evidence that that person has more than one address. In this case the appellant did not state in his evidence that the notice dated 29th Sept., 1970 was sent to the correct address of the respondent. That being the position no presumption could be raised in favour of the appellant that the notice Exhibit 2 was received under Exh.3/A on behalf of the respondent. It therefore, follows that respondent was not informed about the transfer of limited interest by Misbahur Rahman in favour of the appellant on 20th Oct., 1969. 6. According to the respondent he paid the rent for the period Jan., 1971 to Dec., 1971 on 17-12-1967 and for the period Jan., 1972 to Dec. 1972 on 4-2-1970. Both the receipts were granted by Masadur Rahman, one of the brothers, who had originally inducted the respondent along with his two brothers one of which was the appellant. The receipts are Exhibits C/16 and C/17 respectively. According to the appellant, the payment of rent for tine year 1972 was made on 4-2-1970 and that date being latter than the date whoa Misbahur Rahman transferred the property to the appellant on lease, the payment of rent to Masadur Rahman shall not be deemed to be the valid payment of rent to the rightful owner for any period after October, 1969. In reply, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that since Masadur Rahman was one of the co-owners of the property and who was also one of the landlords who had inducted him, the payment of rent to him shall be deemed to be payment of rent to the rightfull owner for the period up to December, 1972. It was urged that the respondent, therefore, cannot be held to he the defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of law. 7. In support of the contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant placed his reliance in Sec. 50 of the Transfer of Property Act (the T. P. Act). It was urged that the respondent, therefore, cannot be held to he the defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of law. 7. In support of the contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant placed his reliance in Sec. 50 of the Transfer of Property Act (the T. P. Act). Sec. 50 of the Act provides that no person shall be chargeable with any rents or profits of any immovable property, which he has in good faith paid or delivered to any person of whom he in good faith held such property, notwithstanding it may afterwards appear that the person to whom such payment or delivery was made had no right to receive such rents or profits. 8. I have already noticed that it is the admitted case of the parries that the respondent was inducted originally by the three brothers including the appellant. From Exhibit C series, the rent receipts, it appears that the rent used to be received from the respondent on behalf of the three brothers either by Misbahur Rahman, or Masadur Rahman or by an agent on their behalf. The payment of rent, therefore, to Masadur Rahman by Exhibits C/16 and C/17 must be held to be payment made in good faith to a person who was entitled to receive the rent notwithstanding the fact that after August 1969 Masadur Rahman had no right to collect the rent. It may be noted that the appellant has admitted that no notice about partition between the three brothers was given to the respondent. 9. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that even if such payment was made by the respondent in good faith to Masadur Rahman up to December, 1972, the same cannot be deemed to be rent in view of Ramlal Marwari V/s. Mahadeo Marwari (AIR 1922 Pat 339). From the judgment of that case it appears that the defendants of that case became lessee under Parvati Charan some time in 1915. Parvati Charan on 6th of June, 1918 mortgaged his interest to the plaintiff of that case who became entitled to realise royalty payable by the defendants. The defendants refused to pay the royalty of same period on the ground that they had paid the royalty for five years to Parvati Charan. But that was paid more than two months after Parvati Charan had mortgaged his interest. The defendants refused to pay the royalty of same period on the ground that they had paid the royalty for five years to Parvati Charan. But that was paid more than two months after Parvati Charan had mortgaged his interest. Under those facts it was held that the royalty paid by the defendants to Parvati Charan after the latter created the mortgage was not payment in fulfilment in obligation to pay the rent as it was paid before it became due and the defendants were held liable to pay the rent to the mortgagee of Parvati Charan. In this case also the rent for the year 1971 was paid in 1967 i.e., long before the rent became due and for the whole of 1972 it was paid on 4-2-1970 also long before the rent became due. It was, therefore, urged on behalf of the appellant that in view of that decision, it must be held that the rent paid by the respondent under Exhibits C/16 and C/17 to Masadur Rahman was not valid payment of rent and, therefore, the respondent was a defaulter in the eye of law. 10. The respondent asserted that the rent under Exhibits C/16 and C/17 which he had paid was the rent for two years and that was accepted by one of the admitted landlords who had inducted him in the suit premises. Therefore, according to the respondent what was paid was rent and if that be so then on the day when the suit was filed no rent was payable for the years 1971 and 1972 and, therefore, so far the rent up to December, 1972 was concerned, the respondent was not a defaulter within the meaning of law. Reliance was placed on different provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (the B. B. C. Act). It was in force when the suit was filed and it was contended that in view of the different decisions of this Court that if any amount was paid by the tenant to the landlord in advance as rent the former was entitled to adjust the same towards the future rent. It was urged that it should, therefore, be held in this case that what was paid by the respondent under Exhibits C/16 and C/17 to Masadur Rahman was rent and not loan. 11. Mr. It was urged that it should, therefore, be held in this case that what was paid by the respondent under Exhibits C/16 and C/17 to Masadur Rahman was rent and not loan. 11. Mr. Prasad could not dispute the legal position that in cases governed by B. B. C. Act it has been repeatedly held by this Court that if any money was paid in advance by the tenant to the landlord as rent, the former was entitled to adjust the same towards future rent and in a suit for eviction on the ground of default in paying rent, the tenant in such cases shall be protected. In view of this legal position, Ramlal Marwaris case (AIR 1922 Pat 339) (supra) decided, under general law shall have no application. I, therefore, hold that what was paid by the respondent under Exhibits C/16 and C/17 was rent and on the date the suit was filed no rent was due and payable by him to the appellant. So the respondent cannot be held to be defaulter in payment of rent for two months within the meaning of law. The conclusion arrived at by the courts below although on different reasons cannot be interfered. 12. Mr. Prasad could not challenge the validity of remittance of rent from Jan. 1973. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without cost throughout.