The benefit under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 can be enjoyed by the tenant only once during the term of his tenancy.

1. - The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal filed by defendant-appellant Deela Ram, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , are as under:

The defendant-appellant has been a tenant under the respondent-plaintiff in respect of the shop in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. A suit for eviction of the appellant was filed by the plaintiff on 31-7-1974 on the ground of default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act). On receipt of the notice of the suit the appellant appeared in the Court and paid the entire amount due from him to the plaintiff on 4-9-1974, on which date the learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff having received the rent from the defendant did not want to proceed with the case. The second suit, out of which the, present appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiff on 20-8-1975 for eviction of the appellant under Clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the appellant who had been given, the benefit of sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Act, had again committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that he was always ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff but since the plaintiff had not been accepting the same he had sent it by moneyorder which was also not accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant-appellant also denied having obtained any benefit under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, in the earlier suit. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant had committed default in paying rent for the period for more than six months in the present case and that he having been given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act in the previous proceedings, was liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute, consequently, the decree for eviction was passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The appeal filed by the appellant having been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kishangarhbas, the appellant has approached this Court by filing this second appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.

3. The only point raised before me and which requires consideration is as to whether it can be said that the defendant-appellant had been given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act in the earlier proceedings.

4. The Act was passed by the Legislature with a view to grant protection to such tenants who are willing to pay the rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord, against their eviction by the unscrupulous landlords from the tenanted premises. A tenant is bound to pay the rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord who is equally bound to accept it when it becomes due and is offered by the tenant. Under the scheme of the Act, if the rent remains unpaid because the tenant did, not make any effort to pay the same to the landlord, the latter gets a ground for eviction of the former from the tenanted premises. If, however, the tenant tenders the rent to the landlord, who without any legal ground, refuses to accept the same and the rent remains unpaid, the ground of eviction is not available to the landlord. In such a case the court cannot pass a decree for eviction against the tenant as under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act the decree can be passed only if the court is satisfied that the tenant neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him to the landlord. If a landlord brings an action for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of nonpayment of rent the tenant can defeat the claim either by proving that he ha