S.K.JHA, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff landlord against a judgement and decree of reversal. The appellant instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, on the 10th of Feb., 1968, for eviction of the tenant respondent from the building let out to the latter. The suit was brought under the provisions of Sec.11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1947 (Bihar Act 3 of 1947) hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Act. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Rent Act ceased to have any force after the 31st of March, 1976, but Bihar Act 16 of 1977 has been given retrospective effect from the 1st of April, 1976. The provisions of the Rent Act have been, for all material purposes, perpetuated up to the 31st March, 1981.

2. The appellant had got a decree for eviction in his favour in the trial court. The court of appeal below however, has reversed the decree and dismissed the appellants suit.

3. The appeal involves some interesting, although vexed, questions of law. The learned single Judge, before whom the appeal was initially placed for hearing, referred it to a Division Bench. When it came to be heard by two of the learned Judges of this Court (Lalit Mohan Sharma and S. Shamsul Hasan, JJ.), they found that there were some conflicting Bench decisions of this Court on 2 points and, therefore, expressed the view that the case be referred for decision by a Full Bench. Hence the case before us.

4. Three questions of law falling for our consideration in view of the order of reference are -

(i) Whether there can be waiver or forfeiture by acceptance of rent by the landlord after a default has already occurred attracting the provisions of Sec.11 of the Rent Act ? On this point the Division Bench observed that there seemed to be an apparent conflict between two Bench decisions of this court, namely, Birendra Mohan Ghosh V/s. Mohammad Ummar, AIR 1973 Pat 299 and Hardwari Lal V/s. Most. Nandrani, 1977 0 BBCJ(HC) 678.

(ii) Whether tender before remittance under Sec.13 of the Rent Act by money-order is necessary to make the remittance by money-order a valid one ? On this point that learned Judges of the Division Bench have noticed an apparent conflict between two Bench decisions in the cases of Mahabir Prasad V/s. Bibhuti Mohan, AIR 1973 Pat 83 and Madho Lal V/s. M.M. Agarwalla, 1974 0 BBCJ 895.

(iii) Whether the remittance by money-order under Sec.13 of the Rent Act must be cumulative for the entire arrears of rent due, to make it a valid remittance as was held by a Bench of this court in the case of Rajendra Mohan Ghosh V/s. Kaushalla Devi, AIR 1978 Pat 292, the correctness of which decision has been doubted by the learned judges referring this case to the Full Bench ?

5. Before, however, dealing with the points of law hereinbefore mentioned, in the fitness of things I must state the facts of the case giving rise to these questions. The appellant instituted the suit for realisation of Rs. 1,088 as damages and for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises detailed at the foot of the plaint. The grounds on which the claim was founded were that the respondent had caused damages to the suit premises, that the appellant required the building for personal necessity within the meaning of Sec.11(1)(c) and that there had been default in the payment of rent within the meaning of Sec.11(1)(d) of the Rent Act. The case of the appellant is that he is the owner and proprietor of a house bearing holding No. 12, circle, No. 16, ward No. 8, situate in mohalla Sabzibagh in the town of Patna and the respondent is in occupation of the said house as a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 76 per month. The respondent had caused damages to the building which is a 3 storeyed one and put the appellant to a loss of Rs. 10,000 but due to his inability to pay the court-fee on that sum, he had limited his claim for damages to Rs. 1,088 only. The appellant has alleged that he had admonished the respond