S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction based on the ground of default in payment of rent under Sec. 33 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It has been found by the courts below that the defendant-respondent had sent the rent for the period from 1st April, 1977 to 31st July, 1977 by a money order which was accepted by the appellant. The case of the defendant-respondent is that thereafter a money order for Rs. 37. 20 on account of rent for the period 1st August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 was sent by him on 23rd December, 1977 and the same was refused by the plantiff and was received back, and that another money order for Rs 52. 06 in respect of; rent for the period 1st August. 1977 to 28th February, 1978 was sent on 28th March, 1978 which was also not accepted and a third money order for Rs. 74. 37 in respect of the rent for the period 1st August, 1977 to. 31st May, 1978 was sent on 26th June 1978 which was also refused.
(2.) SHRI Kejriwal, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if it be assumed that the respondent had sent the money order for Rs. 37. 20 on 23rd December, 1977 for rent for the period 1st August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 towards rent and the same was refused by the appellant there was default in payment of rent for the months of August, September, October and November, 1977. , SHRI Kejriwal has urged that after the refusal by the appellant of the said money order it was incumbent upon the respondent to have deposited the rent in Court under Section 19 (A) (3) of the Act and in view of the failure on the part of the respondent to deposit the rent for the period from 1st August, 1977 onwards in the Court he should be treated to be a defaulter under section 13 (i) (a) of the Act. SHRI Kejriwal has also contended that the default in payment of rent need not be continuous for a period of six months and that the total period of default should be six months even though there may be a break in between. In this context SHRI Kejriwal has placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in (1.) Hanuman Das Vs. Sanwal Ram (1 ). Shri Patodia, the learned counsel for the respondent, has disputed the correctness of the view of this Court in Hanuman Das Vs. Sanwal Ram (supra) and has submitted that the correctness of the said decision is to be considered by a Larger Bench of this Court in Rishab Chand Vs. Veer Chand, Civil Second Appeal No. 102 of 1987. As regards the obligation on the part of respondent to deposit the rent under Section 19-A of the Act. Shri Patodia has ' submitted that since the respondent had sent the rent by money order and the same was refused by the appellant, the respondent was not obliged to send the rent again by money order or to deposit the same in the Court under Section 19-A of the Act. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Patodia has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Babu Ram Vs. Narayan Dass (2) Shiv Shanker Vs. Sanwal Singh (3) and Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai (4 ). Shri Kejriwal has questioned the correctness of the decision of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai (supra) and has submitted that after the enactment of Sec. 19-A, the view expressed in Shiv Shakar Vs. Sanwal Singh (supra) and Babu Ram Vs. Narain Das (supra) no longer holds the field and a tenant in order to avoid eviction on the ground of the default in payment of rent must comply with the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act. In this regard, Shri Kejriwal has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court on Jagdish Kumar Vs. Roopchand (5) and Sobhraj Vs. Bhanwar Lal (6 ). It is true that in Babu Ram vs. Narain Das (supra) and in Shiv Shanker Vs. Sanwal Singh (supra) this Court has held that a tenant should not be forced to make useless offer and send money to the landlord by money order if earlier money order had been refused and the tenant will be held to be willing to pay the rent and hence decree of eviction could not be passed if the tenant had sent the arrears of the rent by money order which was refused by the landlord. These cases were decided at a time when Section 19-A was not on the statute book. Section 19-A was introduced in the Act for the first time by Rajasthan Act, No. 12 of 1965. In Jagdish Kumar vs. Roopchand (supra) it has been held that Section 19-A was introduced to nullify the effect of decision of this Court holding that if the tenant sends rent by money order to the landlord and the either latter refused to accept it then the tenant need not send the rent again to him by money order or tender it to him personally. In Sobhraj vs. Bhanwar Lal (supra) it has been laid down that where the tender of rent by the tenant to the landlord has been refused once the tenant need not tender rent to the landlord again but must deposit the same in the Court to escape the liability of being ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent of six months. In Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai (supra) a learned Judge of this Court has held that the aforesaid decision in Subhraj's case (supra) would not be applicable to the provisions of Sec, 19-A as amended by Rajasthan Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 and Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976 and that it is not obligatory on the part of the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 19-A (3) of the Act. order to avoid eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. In this case, the learned Judge has pointed out two points of distinction between the provisions of Section 19-A as it stood prior to 1975 and the provisions of Section 19-A as amended by Rajasthan Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 and Rajasthan Act, No. 14 of 1976. One of the points of difference was in the heading of Section 19-A. Earlier it contained the heading "deposit of rent by tenant" and after amendment it bears the heading "payment, Remittance and Deposit of rent by Tenant. " The other point of difference that has been pointed out is that in the amended Section 19-A the words 'subject to the provisions of this Section' have been added in sub-section (1) of Section 19-A. I have given my careful consideration to the decision of the learned Judge in Kanhaiya Lal's case (supra) and the points of difference pointed out by him but with very great respect to the learned Judge, I have been unable to persuade myself to agree with the view that the law laid down in the Subhraj's case (supra) is no longer applicable to the amended Section 19-A. On the other hand I find that Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976 whereby Section 19-A was amended has also amended Section 13 of the Act. Prior to the said amendment in Section 19 sub-section (3) of Section 13 provided as under:- "13 (3):- For the purpose of clause (a) Sub-Sec. (1) a tenant shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him if he has remitted such amount to the landlord by postal money order to his ordinary address. "
(3.) AS a result of the amendments introduced in Section 13, Sub-Section (3) has been substituted and the following provisions have been made in Sub-sections (4) of Section 19-A: - " (4): - For the purpose of clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 a tenant shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him, if he has paid, remitted or deposited the amount of rent by any of the methods specified in Sub-section (3)". Taking into consideration the aforesaid amendments that have been introduced in Sections 13 and 19-A by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976 and more particulars the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 19-A. I am of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai (supra) needs reconsideration. I, therefore, refer the following question for the consideration of a Larger Bench: (1) Whether the law laid down in Subhraj v. Bhanwar Lal (supra) is no longer a good law in view of the amendments introduced in Section 19-A of the Act by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976. (2) Whether in view of sub-section (4) of Section 19-A of the Act a tenant can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in pay-ment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, unless he fulfills requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act? The papers may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate directions. .;