JUDGMENT

 The appellants are legal representatives of one Gour Mohan Ghosh, since deceased, who was the tenant in respect of the premises in question. The landlord had filed a suit for evicting the tenant on two grounds viz., that the premises were required by the landlord reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation and the tenant was in arrears of rent for the months of September and October, 1972. The Trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the suit holding that the landlord had failed to prove the alleged requirement and that there was no default in the payment of rent to entitle the landlord to a decree. The landlord carried the matter in first appeal. The First Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court on the question of bona fide requirement but decreed the suit on the other ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent. Against the said order the tenant filed a Second Appeal to the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 15th March, 1984 dismissed the appeal. It is against the said order that the present appeal by special leave is preferred.

2. It is not necessary for us to consider the question of bona fide requirement. The short question which we must consider is whether the First Appellate Court and the High Court were right in coming to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent and was not entitled to the protection of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the Act). Before we proceed to interpret the relevant provisions of the said Act, we must state the factual foundation which would govern our conclusion. Admittedly, the tenant had not paid the rent for the months of September and October, 1972. Although he claims to have personally offered the rent, that part of his evidence has not been accepted. We will, therefore, proceed on the premise that he had not personally tendered the rent to the landlord as alleged by him. But admittedly he sent the amount of rent for the month of October, 1972 by money order dated 28th November, 1972. He did not send the rent for the month of September, 1972. The question then is, is he liable to be evicted? To answer this question reference must be made to the relevant provisions of the Act.

3. Section 11(l) (d) of the Act, insofar as it is relevant for our purpose, provides that where the amount of two months rent lawfully payable by the tenant due from him is in arrears by not having been paid by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with Section 13(1), the tenant shall be liable to eviction. In the present case as stated earlier the tenant sent the rent for the months of October and November, 1972 by money order dated 28th November, 1972. He did not send the rent for September, 1972. It remained outstanding. To put it differently the tenant sent the rent for October, 1972 before the end of November, 1972 which was clearly permissible by virtue of the plain language of Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. Then comes Section 13(1) which we may reproduce:

"When a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully payable to him by tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may remit such rent and continue to remit any subsequent rent which becomes due in respect of such building, by postal money order to the landlord."

This section, therefore, permits the tenant to remit the rent due by postal money order to the landlord, if the latter refuses to accept the same. In the backdrop of facts and the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the High Court answered the contention of the tenant thus

"Once the final court of facts comes to a conclusion that there has been no valid tender by the tenant to the landlord and there has been no refusal on the part of the landlord to accept any rent lawfully payable to him by the tenant, the question of validity of remittance by money order does