The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of rent deposition in court under Section 19(A) of the Act is contingent upon the tenant fulfilling the mandatory pre-requisites of the Act, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-defendant-tenant (hereinafter referred as "tenant") has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2005 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.158/2002 by the Additional District Judge No.3, Ajmer affirming the judgment and decree for rent and eviction dated 29.08.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.767/1983 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Ajmer.

2. The facts succinctly stated, which are relevant to decide the issue involved in the present second appeal, are that the rented premise comprising two shops bearing AMC No.11/12 situated at Imperial Road, Ajmer were in tenancy of the tenant-Mangal Das since 1948 @ Rs.150/- per month. The respondent-plaintifflandlord (hereinafter referred as "landlord") instituted a civil suit for eviction on 26.11.1983 invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1950") on the various grounds of default, nuisance, substantial damages and subletting. In relation to the default, the landlord pleaded that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent for the period from 01.01.1983 to 30.09.1983 i.e more than six months. The landlord vide registered notice dated 19.08.1983 asked the tenant to pay the due rent and to vacate the rented shop, however, since tenant did not respond the notice, the present suit was filed. The tenant submitted written statement admitting his tenancy in the rented shops since 1948, however, denied all the grounds of eviction. In relation to the default, the tenant took a defence that the rent was tendered through money order which was refused by the landlord and thereafter the due rent has been deposited in the court. It has contended that the landlord had knowledge about deposition of due rent in the court, however, thereafter he initiated the present eviction suit. Thus, it was contended that tenant has not committed any default in payment of rent.

3. The trial court, on the basis of rival pleadings of both parties, settled the issues and recorded evidence of both the parties.

4. It may be notices that since the eviction suit is based on the ground of default, as per provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act of 1950, the provisional rent was determined vide order dated 14.12.1988 from 01.01.1983 to 30.11.1988 @ Rs.150/- per month. As per order dated 14.12.1988, arrears of rent deposited by the tenant in the court was adjusted. The trial court, after hearing arguments of both parties and on appreciation of pleadings and evidence decided the suit vide judgment dated 29.08.2002 whereby and whereunder, though the grounds of subletting, nuisance and substantial damages were not found proved, however, the tenant was found defaulter in payment of rent. The issue No.1, pertains to the issue of default and while deciding this issue, the trial court, on the basis of evidence on record, recorded findings that tenant has neither paid the rent nor tendered from 01.01.1983 and hence has committed default in payment of rent for more than six months. The defence, taken by the tenant that the due rent from 01.01.1983 has been deposited in the court under the provisions of Section 19(A) of the Act of 1950 was taken into consideration by the trial court and it was observed that such deposition of rent in court is not lawful and valid. As per provision of Section 19A of the Act of 1950, if landlord refuses to accept the rent, the tenant is required to remit the due rent to landlord either by way of postal money order or by sending notices in writing, requiring the landlord to provide his

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Singh vs Ganpat Lal And Another reported in [(1996) 1 SCC 243] and Fakir Mohd. vs Sita Ram reported in [(2002) 1 SCC 741] has examined the scope of Section 19(A) of the Act of 1950 as well as the issue as to in what circumstances, the rent deposited bank account details in order to deposit the d