A tenant is not required to deposit the rent in court under Section 19-A(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 if he has remitted the rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord.

Headnote:
RENT AND EVICTION CONTROL - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act) - Section 13(1)(a) - Section 19-A - Whether the law laid down in Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal (AIR 1975 Rajasthan 196) is no longer a good law in view of the amendments introduced in Section 19-A of the Act by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976? - Whether in view of the sub-section (4) of Section 19 A of the Act, a tenant can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, unless he fulfils requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act?
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. The defendant contended that he had sent the rent by money order, which was refused by the plaintiff. He also sent subsequent money orders, which were also refused. The defendant argued that he was not obliged to send the rent again by money order or deposit the same in the court under Section 19-A of the Act. The plaintiff relied on the decisions in Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal and Jagdish Kumar v. Roopchand, which held that the tenant must deposit the rent in court under Section 19-A(3) to escape the liability of being ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent for six months. The defendant relied on the decisions in Babu Ram v. Narain Das, Shiv Shanker v. Sanwal Singh, and Kanhaiyalal v. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai, which held that the tenant is not obliged to deposit the rent under Section 19-A(3) of the Act in order to avoid eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the law laid down in Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal is no longer a good law in view of the amendments introduced in Section 19-A of the Act by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976. The Court further held that in view of the sub-section (4) of Section 19 A of the Act, a tenant can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, unless he fulfils requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the law laid down in Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal (AIR 1975 Rajasthan 196) is no longer a good law in view of the amendments introduced in Section 19-A of the Act by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976? 2. Whether in view of the sub-section (4) of Section 19 A of the Act, a tenant can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, unless he fulfils requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) and Section 19-A(3) & (4) of the Act and held that the tenant is not required to deposit the rent in court under Section 19-A(3) if he has remitted the rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord. The Court held that remitting the rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord is one of the methods provided in Clause (a) of Section 19-A(3) and the tenant is not required to adopt more than one method. The Court further held that if the tenant adopts the method under Clause (a) and the landlord does not specify the Bank Account Number and the tenant does not remit the rent due by postal money order under Clause (a), he cannot adopt the method of depositing the rent due with the Court under Clause (c).
Final Decision: The Court answered the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. The Court held that the tenant can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, if he acts in any of the methods provided in sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. - In this civil second appeal the learned Single Judge has referred the following questions to the larger Bench:-

(1) Whether the law laid down in Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal (AIR 1975 Rajasthan 196 = 1974 RLW P-251) is no longer a good law in view of the amendments introduced in Section 19-A of the Act by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976 ?

(2) Whether in view of the sub-section (4) of Section 19 A of the Act, a tenant can (sic) not escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, unless he fulfils requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section l)-A of the Act?

2. The above two questions arose for consideration in the following facts and circumstances.

3. The second appeal was filed by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction based on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises ( Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendant respondent's case is that after acceptance of rent for the period from 1st April, 1977 to 31st of July 1977 a money order for Rs. 37.20 on account of rent for the period from 1st August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 was sent by him on 23rd December, 1977 and the same was refused by the plaintiff. Another money order for Rs. 52.06 in respect of rent for the period 1st August, 1917 to 28th February, 1978 was sent on 28th March, 1978 which was also not accepted and a third money order for Rs. 74.37 in respect the rent for the period 1st August. 1977 to 31st May, 1978 was sent on 26-6-78 which was also refused.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff appellant it was urged before the learned Single Judge that after the refusal by the appellant of the money orders, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have deposited the rent in Court under Section 19-A (3) of the Act and in view of the failure on the part of the respondent to deposit the rent for the period from 1st August. 1977 onwards in the court, he should be treated to be a defaulter under section 13 (1) (a) of the Act. Reliance was placed by Shri R. S. Kejriwal learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant on a decision of this Court in Jagdish Kumar v. Roopchand (1970-RLW-315) and Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal (AIR 1975 Rajasthan 196=1974 RLW 251) .

5. Shri D. D. Patodia, on the other band submitted that since the respondent sent the rent by money order and the same was refused by the appellant, the respondent was not obliged to send the rent again by money order or deposit the same in the court under section 19-A of the Act and he placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Babu Ram v. Narain Das (1959 RLW-81) , Shiv Shanker v. Sanwal Singh (1963 RLW-105) , and Kanhaiyalal v. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai, (1988 (1) RLR-208) . The learned Judge observed that the cases Babu Ram v. Narain Das and Shiv Shanker v. Sanwal Singh were decided at a time when Section 19-A was not on the statute book. Section 19-A was introduced in the Act for the first time by Rajasthan Act 12 of 1965 and it was observed that in Jagdish Kumar v. Roop Chand it has been held that Section 19-A was introduced "to nullify the effect of the decision of this Court holding that if the tenant sends rent by money order to the land-lord and the latter refuses to accept it, then the tenant need not send the rent again to him either by money order or tender it to him personally". It was also observed that in Sobh Raj v. Bhanwarlal (supra) it has been laid down that when the money order has been refused a tenant having tendered the rent to the land lord must himself deposit the same in the court to escape the liability of being ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent for six months. Contrary view is taken by S.N. Bhargava, J. in Kanhaiya Lal v. Anand Kanwar Bai (supra) and it was held that in such a situation, it is not obligatory on the pact of the tenant to deposit the rent under section 19-A (3) of the Act in order to avoid eviction on the ground

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1989 Supreme(Raj) 807

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHM.C.Jain, I.S.Israni, JJ.Smt. Manak Bai & ors. - AppellantVersusKalyan Bux - RespondentD.B. Reference in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 143 of 1987.Decided On : 31-08-1989

A tenant is not required to deposit the rent in court under Section 19-A(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 if he has remitted the rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord.

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.C.Jain, I.S.Israni, JJ.
Smt. Manak Bai & ors. - Appellant
Versus
Kalyan Bux - Respondent
D.B. Reference in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 143 of 1987.
Decided On : 31-08-1989