SHARMA, J. - (1.) SUBSTANTIAL question of law that involves in the instant second appeal is : "whether the remittance of rent in this case by the tenant on October 7, 1978 by postal money order is a valid within the ambit of Section 13 (1) (a), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act) 1950 read with section 19-A of the said Act?"
(2.) THE appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the land lord. THE suit for eviction instituted by the land lord on the ground of second default in payment of rent was decreed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer City (West) Ajmer vide judgment and decree dated March 30, 1981. The civil regular first appeal referred by the tenant was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge Ajmer vide judgment and decree dated July 28, 1982. The tenant has now preferred this second appeal under section 100 CPC. It is not disputed that the tenant remitted the amount of rent from April 1978 to October, 1978 to the land lord by postal money order on October 7, 1978. Both the courts below have held that the tenant neither paid nor tendered the rent for a period of six months to the land lord and committed second default in payment of rent. As the tenant had earlier committed default in payment of rent and got advantage under section 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Rent Act), therefore the tenant was liable to be evicted from the suit premises. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the rhaterial on record. Section 19-A of the Rent Act provides that the tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A provides that a tenant may apart from personal payment of rent to the land lord, remit or deposit rent by any of the following methods- (a) he may remit the amount of any rent due from him by postal money order at the ordinary address of the land lord; or (b) he may, by notice in writing, require the land lord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by the letter, a bank and account number into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord. (c) 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, the tenant may deposit such rent with the court.
(3.) SECTION 13 (1) (a) of the Rent Act provides that decree for eviction shall be passed against the tenant if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months to the land lord. This court in Smt. Manak Bai and others vs. Kalyan Bux (1), had occasion to consider Section 19-A (3) and (4) along with Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rent Act. After analysing the said sections, the position that emerges was incorporated in para 27 of the judgment. Clause 4 of para 27 provides thus : " 4. Where on remission of rent due by postal money order, under clause (a), the same is received back under a postal endorsement `refusal' or `not found' and the land lord does not specify Bank account number under clause (4) (b) the tenant may deposit the amount of rent due with the court. If he so deposits, it will be deemed that the tenant has paid or tendered the amount. But it is not obligatory for the tenant to adopt this method if he has resorted to the method under clause (a ). If there is refusal of money order, there is tender and the tenant would be saved from clause (a) of Section 13 (1 ). However, if he so likes, or if he so chooses, he may adopt the method under clause (c ). Remittance under clause (a) does not necessarily mean acceptance of the money order by the land lord. There would be sufficient compliance of the method under clause (a) if the tenant sends the amount of rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the land lord. If the tenant adopts the method under clause (b) and the land lord does not specify the Bank account Number and the tenant does not remit the rent due by postal money order under clause (a), he cannot adopt the method of depositing the rent due with the court under clause (c)". A look at the record of the instant case demonstrates that the tenant had remitted the rent due from April 1, 1978 to October 31, 1978 on October 7, 1978. In view of section 19-A of the Rert Act, the rent due for six months i. e. from April 1, 1978 to September 1978 could have been tendered or deposited on or before October 15, 1978. A look at Ex. A-2 money order coupon reveals that money order was received back under a postal endorsement `not found'. Therefore it was not obligatory for the tenant to deposit the rent in the Court under clause (c) of Section 19-A of the Rent Act as he had resorted to the method In clause (a) and he had remitted the rent due from h!m by postal money order at the ordinary address of the land lord. The land lord is unable to establish from the pleading or otherwise that the money order was not sent at the ordinary address of the land lord. Thus, in my considered opinion the tenant had not committed default in payment of rent under section 13 (1) (a) as he had tendered the amount of rent to the land lord. Both the courts below have not properly appreciated the legal position and decreed the suit of the land lord. I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the land lord. The cases reported in Gauri Lal vs. Gujar Mal through his LRs. (3), Kuldeep Singh vs. Ganpat Lal and another (4), Ram Kumar Agarwal and another vs. The War Das (4) and Kailash Chandra vs. Sri Kishan (5) are distinguishable and not applicable in the instant case. ;