https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294013 Where rent payment by money order is impliedly authorised by the landlord, tender of the amount to the post office within time constitutes payment to the landlord's agent, or at least to a common agent of both parties. A subsequent delay in postal transit, beyond the tenant's control, does not amount to default under Section 3(1)(a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The statutory rules relating to recall or countermand of postal remittances do not change that result on the facts found. The tenant was therefore not in default in respect of the rent remitted by money order and remained entitled to protection against ejectment. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:50:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294013 Where rent payment by money order is impliedly authorised by the landlord, tender of the amount to the post office within time constitutes payment to the landlord's agent, or at least to a common agent of both parties. A subsequent delay in postal transit, beyond the tenant's control, does not amount to default under Section 3(1)(a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The statutory rules relating to recall or countermand of postal remittances do not change that result on the facts found. The tenant was therefore not in default in respect of the rent remitted by money order and remained entitled to protection against ejectment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294013