KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26. 5. 1982 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 111/80 affirming the decree of eviction passed against him by the learned Munsif (West), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 325/76. The brief facts are under:-
(2.) THE defendant has been a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -. Earlier, suit No. 399/72 was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and during the pendency of the said suit, on an application having been moved by the defendant under section 13 (A) of the Rajasthan Permises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act), the court had determined a sum of Rs. 388. 88 paise as the amount payable by way of rent, interest, costs etc till 10. 11. 1975 and vide order dated 11. 11. 1975, the court directed the defedant to deposit the same within the specified period and also to deposit the future rent month by month during the pendency of the said suit. THE defendant deposited the above said sum of Rs. 388. 88 paise in the court within time, but instead of depositing the future rent month by month, deposited a sum of Rs. 60/- on 20. 2. 1976 and Rs. 30/- on 1. 7. 1976. Since the subsequent two deposits were not made within time by the defendant, the plaintiffs moved an application praying that his defence against eviction should be struck out. THE said application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that he having deposited the initial amount determined by the court within time, the ground of default in payment of rent came to an end and his defence could not be struck out for not having deposited the rent for the subsequent months within time. Vide the judgment dated 9. 7. 1976, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant having deposited the above said sum of Rs. 388. 88 paise determined by the court, the ground of default in payment of rent came to an end and, as such, he was entitled to the benefit of having deposited the amount. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. THE suit, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiffs on 18. 9. 1976 stating that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for the period from Kartik Badi 5 Samvat 2032 to Asoj Badi 4 Samvat 2033 corresponding to the period from 24. 10. 1975 to 12. 9. 1976 and that he having availed benefit in the earlier suit, he was liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent for a period more than six months. THE defendant contested the suit and pleaded that during the pendency of the above said suit he had made the above said deposits of Rs. 60/- and 30/- and after the decision of the earlier suit he had tendered to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 80/- i. e. Rs. 20/-towards the rent due till then and Rs. 60/- as the rent for future months, but they having refused to accept the same, he had served a notice calling upon them to furnish their bank account so that he could deposit the rent as and when it became due, but since he did not get any reply from them he deposited the amount in the court under section 19 of the Act. He, therefore, contended that he had not committed any default and prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the issue to determine whether the defendant was guilty of having committed default in payment of rent for the second time and after recording the evidence produced by the parties, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the deposits made by the defendant were not valid and he having been granted benefit of the deposits made in the earlier suit, is liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute. THE appeal filed by the defendant having been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, he has approached this court by filing this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. It is not disputed before me that if the deposits made by the appellant during the pendency of the earlier suit be taken to be valid the tenant-appellant cannot be said to have committed default in payment of rent for a period of six months or more, on the date of institution of the present suit, but if the said deposits are invalid and of no consequence, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower courts cannot be disturbed. Admittedly, on an application having been moved by the defendant in the earlier suit the court had determined the rent payable to be Rs. 388. 88 paise including interest and cost and had directed to the appellant to pay the same to the respondents-plaintiffs or deposit in the learned trial court within a specific time and had also directed him to pay to the respondents or deposit in the learned trial court the future rent month by month. Admittedly, the amount was deposited by the appellant though not within the time and according to the case of the appellant, which has not been controverted, the amount deposited by him covered the period upto 15. 6. 1976. The earlier order passed by the court on 11. 11. 1975 was in two parts; one was for depositing of the future rent by the appellant-tenant and the other was fixing the period within which it was to be deposited. The tenant, of course, had failed to comply with the condition of deposits made within the time specified in the order and the only consequence thereof would have been that he, inspite of having made payment, would have been liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute in the earlier suit if the suit subsisted being on ground also on other than the non-payment of rent. His liability to pay the rent, however, came to an end the moment he deposited it in court under the above said order dated 11. 11. 1975. No case has been brought to my notice in which it hasbeen held that although the rent has been deposited under the orders of the court, it will not be legal payment to the landlord. I am, therefore, of the view that the moment the amount was deposited by the appellant in the previous suit during its pendency and under the orders of the court his liability to pay the rent for the period for which it was deposited came to an end and he cannot be said to be in arrears of rent for the said period. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen admittedly was filed on 18. 9. 1976 and, as such, even if the deposit made by the appellant under section 19a of the Act after the decision of the suit is not taken into consideration, the defendant cannot be said to be in arrears of rent for a period of six months or more on the date of institution of the suit. The learned lower courts, therefore, committed a grave legal error in holding that the amount deposited in the court was not by way of a valid deposit or that the appellant had committed default for a period of six months or more on the date of filing of this suit. The judgments of the learned lower courts, therefore, cannot be sustained. Consequently, I accept this second appeal, set aside the decrees and judgments passed by the learned lower courts and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents with costs throughout. .;