A valid tender of rent arrears requires the money order to be taken to the landlord for payment within the specified time, and the refusal of the money order by the landlord.

1. This Second Appeal arises in a case under the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order of 1950. On 10.3.1952 the Rent Controller, Kottayam, passed an order directing the tenant in this case to pay to the land-lord within two weeks from the date of the order all arrears of rent due till the date of payment with interest thereon at 61/4 per cent per year and allowing the land-lord to evict the tenant after one month from the date of the order if he defaulted to pay the arrears as directed within the specified time. On 22.3.1952 the tenant sent the amount to the land-lord by a postal money order. The land-lord refused the money order, according to the tenant without any lawful excuse, and according to the land-lord because the money order was taken to him only long after the time limit fixed by the Rent Controller. On 7.5.1952 the tenant deposited in the Taluk Office, under Cl. 8 of the Buildings Lease and Rent Control Order and the Government Notification R. Dis. 6549/50/P.W.C. dated 6.12.1951, all arrears of rent due till then. His case is that the money order refused by the land-lord was received back by him only on 8.4.1952, that it was only on that date that he came to know of the land-lord's refusal of the money order, and that the thirty days' time from the date of refusal allowed by the Notification of 6.12.1951 to make the deposit begins, therefore, only from 8.4.1952. On 16.5.1952 the land-lord filed a petition in the Kottayam Munsiff's Court praying for execution of the Rent Controller's order dated 10.3.1952 and eviction of the tenant from the building on the ground that the latter had defaulted to pay the arrears of rent within the time allowed by that order. The tenant opposed the application contending that he had sent the arrears to the land-lord by a money order within the time allowed by the Rent Controller, that on the refusal of the money order by the land-lord which came to his knowledge only on 8.4.1952 he had deposited the amount under the notification mentioned above on 7.5.1952, that the said deposit was sufficient compliance of the Rent Controller's order, and that the land-lord was not therefore entitled to evict him from the building. He also filed an affidavit in support of his objection petition. But in the affidavit there is no mention of the date on which the money order was taken to the land-lord for payment and refused by him. The land-lord filed a counter-affidavit on 9.6.1952 controverting the tenant's objections. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that the land-lord refused the money order because it was brought to him for payment long after the time allowed by the Rent Controller and that the tenant had therefore failed to comply with the Rent Controller's order and the land-lord was competent to execute that order and evict him from the building. The District Munsiff rejected the land-lord's execution application by a short order which reads as follows:

"As per the order, the counter-petitioner has sent by M.O. the arrears due Rs. 85 on 22.3.1952 which the petitioner refused on 8.5.52 and hence the counter-petitioner has deposited the amount before the Taluk Office under S. 8 and has filed certificate. Hence execution cannot proceed and the petition is hence rejected".

Against this order the land-lord filed an appeal in the Kottayam District Court, and the learned Additional District Judge of that court who heard the appeal dismissed the same, holding that as the tenant had sent the amount to the land-lord within a reasonable time before the expiry of time limit fixed by the Controller and the refusal of the money order came to his knowledge only on 8.4.1952, the deposit made on 7.4.1952 was sufficient compliance of the Rent Controller's order. The land-lord has filed this second appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge.

2. The view of the courts below that a mere remittance of the money order within the time limit fixed by the Controller w