A landlord cannot benefit from their own inaction and make the defendant artificially defaulter in the payment of rent.

1. - The Additional Munsif (West), Ajmer, vide his judgment and decree dated 25.11.1982, passed a decree of eviction against the appellant on the ground that the appellant committed second default in the payment of rent. The decree passed by the said Court was affirmed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Ajmer, vide his judgment and decree dated 15.12.1992. This decree has been challenged in this Civil Second Appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant obtained benefit of first default in the previously instituted suit. The appellant sent rent by money-order from 8.2.1976 to 31.3.1976 on 1.4.1976. Notice was given to the plaintiffs landlords to disclose their bank-account, but they did not disclose the bank-account. Under these circumstances the defendant appellant filed an application under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, (for short `the Act') before the Munsif (West), Ajmer. A notice of the application was given to the plaintiffs-landlords, but they remained absent. On 20.11.1976, the Munsif (West), Ajmer, passed the following order :

"odhy izkFkhZ gkftjA foi{kh ckotwn rkehy xSj gkftjA mldh ,0Mh0 ckn rkehy vkbZ gSA vr% vkns'k gS fd foi{kh pkgs rks tek'kqnk jde vius gdksa dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq, fu;ekuqlkj U;k;ky; ls mBk ysaosA i=koyh QSlyk 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQrj gksA izkFkhZ pkgs rks gj ekg jde fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek djkrs jgsA"

2. On 1.1.1978, the plaintiffs-respondents filed the present suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant on the ground that the defendant- appellant neither tendered nor paid rent for more than six months and as such he committed second default in the payment of rent. As mentioned above, both the lower courts decreed the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents. Mr. Karnani, counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that the defendant-appellant had deposited rent upto 31.12.1977, under Section 19A of the Act. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents and also by both the lower courts. The only ground on which the decree for eviction has been passed is that the deposit of rent under Section 19A from 20.11.1976 to 31.12.1976, was not proper. It is pertinent to note that the Munsif (West), Ajmer, in proceedings under Section 19A vide order dated 20.11.1976 directed that the defendant can deposit the rent every month in future. In pursuance of the said direction, the defendant-appellant deposited the rent under Section 19A of the Act. Sub-Clause (c) of Section 19A of the Act reads as below :

"(c) Where he has remitted the rent by postal money order under clause (a) and the money order is received back by him under a postal endorsement of refusal or unfound and where the landlord does not specify a bank account number under clause (b) or where there is bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the court within fifteen days of the expiry of the period of ten days referred to in clause (b) and in the case of such bonafide doubt as aforesaid, within fifteen days of the time referred to in sub-section (1) and further continue to deposit with the court and rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises."
(emphasis supplied)

3. The last line of this clause makes it clear that the Court can direct the defendant to continue to deposit rent in the Court for subsequent months when the same becomes due. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the deposit of rent under Section 19A was not proper. It is also made clear that a landlord cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own inaction and make the defendant artificially defaulter in the payment of rent. In the present case, the defendant-appellant, as mentioned above, tendered rent by money orders but the same was refused by the plaintiffs-landlords. The plaintiffs-landlords on being asked, did not disclose their bank account number to the defendant-appellant, so the defendant