- (1.) IN this Second Appeal of the tenant, which arises out of a decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, the substantial question of law which arises for determination is as to whether the failure of the tenant to fulfil all the requirements specified in Section 1 (A c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 makes the tenant liable to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent.
(2.) THE respondent instituted a suit against the appellants alleging that he had let out a shop & godown to the appellants on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-A suit for rent and ejectment has been filed on 4-5-73. THE same was decided on 1-5-79. THE tenants were given the benefit of depositing the rent by them, after the first default. THE suit was dismissed by the court, after the deposit had been made. In the second suit also the landlord alleged about the default in payment of rent. The appellants contested the suit and asserted that they had not committed any default and they had deposited the rent under Sec. 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, in the court. Before the learned trial court the tenant had led evidence to prove that he had sent rent by money-order, but the same was not accepted by the landlord and thereafter he had deposited the same in the court. The learned trial court held that the deposit of the rent was not in accordance with law and therefore it cannot be as deposited made in terms of Section 19-A. The learned Appellate Court found that the tenant had sent the money-order for rent with effect from 1-10-1979, but the landlord has refused to accept the same. Thereafter the tenant had deposited the amount of rent in the court of Munsif (South), Kota. It further held that the suit had been transferred in the court of Munsif (North), Kota, and therefore, the deposit made by the tenant cannot be treated as a deposit made under Section 19-A. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that once the tenant had sent the rent by money-order and the landlord has not accepted the money order and it was not obligatory for the tenant to have deposited the amount of rent in the court. The presumption incorporated in Section 19-A (4) about the tender of rent arises as soon as the tenant fulfilled the conditions specified in Section 19a 3 (a ). He has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench in Smt. Manak Bai V. Kalyan Bux (l ). Learned Counsel for the respondent could not point out any authority of this court which his taken a different view, than the one taken in Manak Bai's case, after 1989.
(3.) AFTER having carefully gone through the judgments of the two courts below and after having looked into the principles enunciated in Manak Bai's case (supra), I am fully convinced that this appeal deserves to be allowed". Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the tenant had sent money order for the rent due from the tenant with effect from 1-10-1979. The courts below have also found that the landlord refused to accept the money-order. In Manak Bai's case the Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that once the landlord had declined to accept the money-order for the amount of rent, then it is not necessary for the tenant to comply with the procedure contained in Section 19 A (3) (b) & (c) of Act. In view of the facts which have come on record and the position of law, it is to be held that the tenant (appellant) did not commit any default in payment of rent. Obviously therefore two courts below have committed serious error of law in passing of decree & judgment against him. ;