M. C. JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE second appeals have filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 26. 9. 86 and 7. 2. 87 respectively by which he dismissed them and confirmed the judgments of the Additional Munsif No. 1, Bikaner, decreeing the suits for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. The questions involved in both the appeals are similar and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE facts of the case giving rise to Appeal No. 151 of 1986 may be summarised thus. THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for the recovery of rent and mesne profits with the allegations, in short, that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, in previous suit No. 50 of 1975, he was given benefits under Sec. 13 (4), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'), accordingly, it was dismissed and he has again defaulted in payment of rent for more than 6 months, i. e. , from 1st September, 1978. THE defendant admitted in his written statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit premises on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, and in the previous suit No. 50 of 1975, he had been gi\en benefits under Sec. 13 (4 ). THE remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. He has averred that he has not committed any default in payment of rent, on the refusal of his money orders of rent he deposited their amounts in the court, no default has been committed and the suit deserves to be dismissed. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties which was produced, the trial court held that the defendant had committed defaults in payment of rent of eight months, i. e. , October, November and December, 1978 and January, February, April, August and September, 1979 and accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment. This was confirmed by the learned District Judge in appeal, as said above. The facts of the other case giving rise to the Appeal No. 29 of 1987 are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-appellant with the allegations, in short, that the defendant committed default in payment of rent. Suit No. 65/74 was filed for ejectment on this ground, he was given benefits under Sec. 13-A of the Act, suit for ejectment was dismissed and he has again defaulted in payment of rent for more than six months. The defendant admitted in his written - statement that he is in occupation and possession of the suit premises on monthly rent of Rs. 56/ -. Suit No. 85/74 was filed for ejectment and it was dismissed. The remaining allegations of the plaint have been denied. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence which was produced, the learned trial court held that in the previous Suit No 64/74, the defendant had been given benefits under Sec. 13-A of the Act, he has again committed default in payment of rent of 9 months, i. e. , November and December, 1975, January, February, March, May, June & July, 1976 and April, 1977, and accordingly decreed the suit for ejectment. This was confirmed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner, as said above. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is well proved from the findings recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned lower appellate court that no amount of rent was due for six months, the provisions of Sec. 13 (l) (a) of the Act are not attracted in any case, mere defaults in payment of rent of different six or more months do not attract the provisions of this clause and this clause simply requires that an amount of rent should remain due for six or more months. He further contended that the defendants validly deposited the amounts of rent in the court after the money orders were refused by the respondents, it was not necessary for them to send written notices under Sec. 19-A (3) (b) of the Act requiring their landlords to specify the bank and the account number and Sec. 13 (l) (a) has to be read with Sec. 19a (4) of the Act. He also contended that the word 'and' appearing in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Sec. 19a should be read as 'or' otherwise the object of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 would be frustrated. He relied upon Martin & Harris (P) Ltd. vs. Prem Chand, (1), Ishwar Singh vs. State of U. P. (2 , Khemka & Co. vs. State of Maharashtra (3) and M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons vs. Babir Nath (4 ). In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is well proved from the evidence on record that the defendants committed defaults in payment of rent of more than six months, it is not necessary under Sec. 13 (l) (a) of the Act that there should be default in payment of rent of continuous six months and this clause is fully attracted, if defaults in payment of rent of six or more months are committed. He further contended that admittedly, the defendant-appellants did not comply with the provisions of Sec. 19-A (3 (b) of the Act by sending notice to the plaintiff-respondents requesting them to intimate their banks and account numbers before depositing the amount of rent in the court, as such the deposits made in the court were not valid, they cannot be taken into consideration and the provisions of Sec. 19a (3) of the Act were inserted in the Act to eliminate the deposits in the Court. He relied upon Utkal Contractors vs. State of Orissa, (5), Hanuman Das vs. Sanwal Ram, (6) and Sobhraj vs. Bhanwar Lal (7 ). It is the admitted case of the parties that in both the cases, the defendants did not send any notice requiring the plaintiff-respondents to specify their banks and account numbers wherein the rent could be deposited by them as required under Sec. 19-A (3) (b)of the Act and they deposited the amounts of rent in the court under Sec. 19-A (3) (c) of the Act.
(3.) THE main question for consideration in these appeals is whether the amounts of rent so deposited in the court are valid and they can be taken into consideration under Section 19-A (4)of the Act. On analysis, Clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act runs as under:- " (i) where the tenant has remitted the rent by postal money order under clause (a) and the money order is received back by him under a postal endorsement of refusal or unfound, and (ii) where the landlord does not specify a Bank and Account Number under clause (b), or (iii) where there is a bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, (iv) the tenant may deposit such rent with the court within 15 days of the expiry of the period of 10 days referred to in clause (b) and in the case of such oonafide doubt, as aforesaid, within 15 days of the time referred to in sub-section (I), and (v) further continue to deposit with the court any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises. " It is clear from the above analysis of clause (c) that in all cases other than bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, rent can be deposited in the court, if the following two conditions are satisfied, namely:- " (i) The rent has been remitted by postal money order and it has been received back under a postal endorsement of refusal or unfound, and (ii) the landlord has not specified a Bank and Account Number, despite notice in writing requiring the same. " It is well known fact that a great difficulty is experienced, much time is required, many formalities are required to be observed and great expenses are to be incurred in depositing an amount in a court. What to say in withdrawing it therefrom? Previously, Rules 267 to 275 and 277, General Rules (Civil), l952 dealt with such repayments: Now Rules No. 270 to 276, 278, 280, 286 and 290 General Rules (Civil), 1986 deal with them. Under these Rules, following steps have to be taken for re-payment of amounts, namely:- " (1) Application in the prescribed form F. 25 has to be moved by the person entitled for repayment containing correct and complete particulars in its columns No. 1 to 4. The signature of the applicant is to be witnessed. (2) The application is registered in the Register No. 19. Thereafter, the application is sent to the official having the custody of the relevant file or to the record room if the file has been consigned there, for the comparison of the particulars of the application with the file and for filling up the columns No. 5, 6 & 7 of the application. (3) The Munsarim/reader is then required to report in Column No. 8 of the application whether the amount is still in deposit and the applicant is entitled for its repayment. (4) Then the application is laid before the concerned Presiding Officer for passing repayment order on it. (5) After the order is passed, the repayment order is prepared in G A Form (F 120) and entries are made in the Register of Receipts of Deposits (No. 16) and Register of Repayment of Deposits (No. 17 ). (6) Thereafter, the repayment order is sent to the Treasury for passing it. (7) After the repayment order is received back duly passed by the Treasury, it is delivered to the applicant and his signature is obtained in the remark column of the Register No. 17. (8) Lastly, the applicant obtains the payment from the Bank on presentation of the duly passed repayment order. " ;