BERI, C.J.—Martin and Harris Private Limited is the tenant-defendant whose defence was struck off by the order of the learned Munsif, Jaipur City (West), by his order dated December 30, 1972, under sec. 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Feeling aggrieved by that order the tenant moved a revision-application before this Court. Kan Singh J., who heard the matter, on examination of the decided cases came to the conclusion that there was a conflict in the reported decisions of this Court and he has, therefore referred two questions for the opinion of a larger Bench.

2. In order to appreciate the back-ground, in which these two questions arise it will be relevant to recall the broad facts of the case. The tenant took on lease a portion of the premises called "Khinduka Bhavan" situate in New Colony, Jaipur for three years, by means of a registered lease-deed dated August 1, 1963, on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. Another portion of the same premises was taken on lease by the same tenant on June 1, 1966 at the rate of Rs.180/- per month. The landlords case, as disclosed in the plaint,is that the rent amounting to Rs. 1,200/- for the period beginning on November 1, 1970 and ending on April 30, 1971 of the portion taken on lease in the year 1963 had fallen in arrears and, therefore, he was entitled to evict the tenant. The landlord had impleaded the tenant company at Calcutta and also its office at Jaipur as two distinct defendants. On August 31, 1971, the first date of hearing, a copy of the plaint was given to the defendant-company with the Calcutta address. On September 15, 1971, the tenant filed the written statement denying that any rent had fallen in arrears and contended that because the landlord had refused to accept rent since August, 1969 the tenant was depositing rent under sec. 19-A of the Act for both the portions of the premises in the Court and the landlord was not entitled to a decree for eviction. The landlord, however, moved an application under sec. 13(6) of the Act praying that the tenants defence against eviction be struck off. The tenant answered the application saying that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent; that he had refused to accept the cheque dated August 23, 1969 representing the rent which was sent to him; that the landlord refused to accept the rent for September 1969 which the tenant had sent by means of a money order in the sum of Rs. 426.85 and, therefore, the tenant deposited the rent for August, September and October, 1969 in the Court under sec. 19-A of the Act and he thereafter also deposited the rent for the subsequent months in the Court and his defence was, as such, not liable to be struck off under sec. 13(6) of the Act.

3. The learned Munsif accepted the landlords application on the ground that the tenant could not take advantage of the deposit of rent in the Court under sec. 19A of the Act because the tenant had not tendered each months rent first to the landlord and had not on his refusal deposited the same in the court under sec. 19-A of the Act and therefore the tenant could not escape the consequences contemplated by sec. 13(6) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant came up in revision to this Court Kan Singh J. has now referred to a larger Bench the following two questions:

"(1) Whether under sec. 19A of the Act it is necessary for the tenant every time before making a deposit of rent in court to tender the same to the landlord and to have his refusal or once the landlord has refused the tender of rent, then for every subsequent deposit in court the tenant will not be required to first tender the rent to the landlord and have it refused. In other words, which of the two cases, namely 1959 R.L.W. 81 or 1970 R. L. W. 315 lays down the correct law?

(2) Whether even in a case where rent has been deposited in court under sec. 19-A of the Act the tenant is required to make a fresh deposit of the rent in court under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document