A tenant can send rent by money order even in normal course, and it is not necessary for the landlord to refuse to accept rent before the tenant can send it by money order.

NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants for setting aside the decree for their eviction from the premises detailed in Schedule A of the plaint and for arrears of rent.

2. The suit in question had been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, who are owners of the house in question. It is not in dispute that the defendants were inducted as tenants in the said house in the year 1973 at a monthly rental of Rs. 950/-. According to the plaintiffs, it has been agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants that the rent shall be payable in advance in the first week of every month according to the English Calendar. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant 1 did not pay the rent in the first week of May, 1978, but sent a cheque dated 15-5-1978 in favour of plaintiff 1. When the said cheque was presented to the Bank, it was dishonoured. It has been alleged in the plaint that the defendants also defaulted payment of rent from June, 1978 to March, 1979. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that they require the house in question for their personal use.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. They did not dispute that cheque dt. 15-5-1978 had been dishonoured. It is also not in dispute that rent for the month of March, 1979 has not been paid. According to them, rent for the months of June, July and August, 1978 was sent to plaintiff 1 by cheques, but when it was discovered that the cheques Were not being presented for encashment, the defendants sent the rents for the months of September, October, November, December, 1978 and January and February, 1979 by money order which were refused by the plaintiffs. As such, according to the defendants, there has been no default in payment of rent for two consecutive months giving cause of action to the plaintiffs for filing the suit in question. About personal necessity, it has been asserted on their behalf that the plaintiffs have sufficient accommodation in Yusuf Buildings where they are living and the plea for personal necessity is a mere pretence.

4. Learned Sub-ordinate Judge, on a consideration of the materials, came to the conclusion that there has been default in payment or rent for the month of May, 1978. About the months of June to August, 1978 he was of the opinion that there was a valid tender of rent by the defendants to the plaintiffs by sending cheques which were not encashed by the plaintiffs, and, as such, there was no default for those months. Regarding the months of Sept. 1978 to Feb. 1979 he came to the conclusion that as there was no refusal by the plaintiffs it was not open to the defendants to send rent by money order; the result whereof will be that in eye of law there was no valid tender of rents for the months of September, 1978 to February, 1979 which amounted to default on the part of the defendants in payment of rent for those months. On the question of personal necessity, learned Subordinate Judge accepted the case of the plaintiffs that there was lack of space in the Yusuf Buildings where plaintiffs were staying and they require the house in question for their personal use. On the aforesaid findings, as already stated above, the suit for eviction and realisation of arrears of rent was decreed.

5. On behalf of the defendant-appellants, learned counsel challenged the finding of the trial court regarding the default in payment of rent for the months of Sept. 1978 to Feb 1979 saying that the learned Sub-ordinate Judge took an erroneous view of law that a tenant can send rent by money order only when the is refusal by the landlord. According to the learned counsel, sending rent by money order is one of the modes of payment of rent and even in normal course it is open to the tenant to adopt one of the three methods for payment of rent, i.e., (i) payment by hand to hand, (ii) payment by cheque or draft, and (iii) payment by money order. In other words, even in cases where there is no refusal on the part of the landlo