Alok Sharma, J.

1. The Rent Tribunal Ajmer (hereinafter the Tribunal) vide judgment dated 26-7-2005 issued a certificate of possession in favour of the respondent-landlord (hereafter the landlord) and an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenants (hereinafter the tenants) on the ground of the tenants having defaulted in payment of rent for the period from 1-7-1999 to 31-12-2003. The tenant's appeal there against before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter the Appellate Tribunal) was dismissed on 12-4-2010. Hence this petition.

2. It is not in dispute that a landlord tenant relationship obtains in the instant case, the late father of the tenant having been inducted as such by the late father of the landlord on or about 1-3-1981. It is also not in dispute that despite a registered AD notice in terms of the provisos to Section 9(a) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter the Act of 2001) sent on 19-9-2003 by the landlord requiring the tenants to pay arrears of rent for the period from 1-2-1996 to 31-8-2003 received by the tenant on 23-9-2003 the arrears of rent were not deposited in the designated bank account of the landlord. Instead the plea taken by the tenants as the LRs of the erstwhile tenant Badrinath was that they had deposited on 1-7-2003 the rent upto 31-12-2003 with the court of Munsif East Ajmer in Case No. 22/1996 in proceedings initiated on 15-5-1996 by the late Badrinath, under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter the Act of 1950) and hence were not in default on rent and no arrears were payable.

3. The Rent Tribunal on the tenants defence before it considered their documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 which they asserted evidenced deposit of due rent upto 31-12-2003 with the Munsif (East) Ajmer (Case No. 22/1996) in proceedings under Section 19A of the Act of 1950. It however came to a conclusion that there was no evidence laid by the tenants that following the death of erstwhile tenant Badrinath on 24-6-1999 his LRs had been substituted, or vakalatnama filed on their behalf to continue proceedings under Section 19A of the Act of 1950. The Tribunal further held that the purported deposit of rent with the court of Munsif (East) Ajmer under Section 19A of the Act of 1950, was not from the evidence before it preceded by the essential preconditions of tender of rent by a money order (which was refused) or an unsuccessful attempt by the tenants through registered notice to elicit the landlord's bank account where the deposit of rent could be made. It was held that in this view of the matter the purported deposit of rent under Section 19A of the Act of 1950 with the court of Munsif (East) Ajmer upto 31-8-2003 was neither valid nor legal. The Tribunal thereafter noted that despite the registered AD notice of 19-9-2003 (Ex.5) admittedly receipted and acknowledged by the tenants on 23-9-2003 (Ex.6/7) the arrears of rent in issue detailed therein were not deposited in the landlord's designated bank account within thirty days or at all and hence the tenants were in default. And consequently a certificate of possession was liable to be issued in favour of the landlord and an order of eviction against the tenants.

4. On the aggrieved tenants' appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, aside of reasons recorded by the Tribunal, held that with the repeal of the Act of 1950, effective 1-4-2003 when the Act of 2001 came into force, no deposit of arrears of rent subsequent to the landlord's notice under provisos to Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 sent on 19-9-2003 could be made under Section 19A of the Act of 1950 as it stood effaced. It was held that in the circumstances non-payment of due arrears of rent at least for the months of April, 2003 to August, 2003, was clearly made out, as with the coming into force the Act of 2001 effective 1-4-2003, rent could only be paid in the manner as provided under Section 5(3) of the Act of 2001. And the tenants admittedly not having so dep