LODHA, J.—This is a defendant-tenants second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment in respect of a portion of a house situated in the city of Ajmer.

2. The suit was based on three grounds—

(i) default in payment of rent for the period 13-1-1968 to 31-12-1968;

(ii) material alterations having been made in the suit premises by the defendants without permission of the land-lord; and

(iii) sub-letting a part of the premises by the tenant without the consent of the plaintiff.

It may be stated here that the plaintiff had previously filed a suit for ejectment is respect of the suit premises against the defendant which was registered as Civil Suit No. 270 of 1964. That suit for ejectment was also based on default. After the introduction of Sec.13-A in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) the defendant deposited the arrears of rent along with interest and costs of the suit so that the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The plaintiffs case is that after having taken benefit of Sec. 13-A of the Act in the previous suit the defendant again committed default in payment of rent for more than six months, and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. As already stated above he relied on two more grounds for ejectment viz. material alterations by the tenant in the premises and sub-letting by him, but both these grounds have been repelled by the courts below and none of them has been relied upon before me. The only short question, therefore, for my decision is whether the decree for ejectment granted by the courts below on the ground of default in payment of rent is sustainable?

3. The defendants case is that he tendered the amount of rent due from him to the plaintiff personally as well as by money order but the plaintiff did not accept the same. The question of oral tender has not been substantiated and it is only tender by money order which has been relied upon by the appellant. The relevant documentary evidence in this connection consists of the money order receipt issued by the Post Office dated 19-3-1968 for Rs. 48/- only and the money order coupon Ex.A.16. It appears from Ex. A. 16 that the name of the payee has been mentioned as Bhanwarlal Goyal. In the space for message it has been mentioned that two months rent for the months of February and March 1968 Rs. 48/-is being remitted. There is a further endorsement on Ex. A. 16 that the money order was refused on 22-3-1968. The contention on behalf of the defendant-appellant is that since the landlord had declined to accept the rent for two months remitted by money order Ex. A. 16, he was not bound to send rent every month thereafter, and repeat this useless formality. It is contended that the act of the tenant in sending the rent for two months February and March 1968 clearly indicates readiness and willingness on his part to pay the rent and therefore it cannot be said that the tenant had not tendered the amount of rent due from him.

4. On the other hand the contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that even though the rent for the month of January 1968 had fallen due the same was not remitted and the rent for the month of March was sent in advance which the plaintiff was not bound to accept. It is thus submitted that there was no valid tender. In the alternative it is submitted that even though the plaintiff did not accept the rent sent by Money Order Ex. A. 16, it was imperative for the tenant to have deposited the rent fallen due in the court under sec. 19A of the Act. It has also been contended that ther is no evidence on the record that the rent was offerred to and refused by the plaintiff.

5. D.W 1 Sobhraj has stated that he had sent the money order to the plaintiff at his usual address namely Hindu Modi Mohalla, Ajmer, and that the coupon Ex. A. 16 was written by him. On the other hand the plaintiff P. W. 1 Bhanwarlal has stated that he cannot say whether the money order corresponding to the receipt Ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document