The statutory obligation on the tenant to deposit rent per month under section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 cannot be waived without an express provision, and the requirements for proving waiver must be met.

Alok Aradhe, J.:-

This appeal is by the plaintiff which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law: -

“Whether the lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in dismissing the plaintiffs suit without reversing the finding of the trial Court on issues No. 2 and 2B”

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed a suit, inter alia, on the ground that he is the owner of the building situate in Sarafa Bazar, Bhopal. The suit shop situate on the ground floor which was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of 31.87P. It was further pleaded that plaintiff required the same bona fide for the purpose of re-construction and the defendant is in arrears of rent for the months of April-May, 1980. Accordingly, the decree for eviction under section 12(1)(a) and (h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was sought.

3. The defendant filed written statement in which, inter alia, the need of the plaintiff for re-construction was denied. It was further denied that the defendant is in arrears of rent. It was also pointed out that defendant had sent the rent by money order, however, the plaintiff refused to accept the same.

4. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 30-11-1993, inter alia, found that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ground under section 12(1)(h) of the Act. However, the Court held that despite notice (Exhibit-P-16) to the defendant, he failed to tender the rent for the months of April-May, 1980. Accordingly, the decree for eviction under section 12(1)(a) of the Act was granted. The lower Appellate Court, inter alia, held that summons of the suit were served on the defendant on 3-4-1985 and on 22-4-1985 the defendant had deposited a sum of 1848.50P. Thus, the defendant had deposited the entire arrears of rent within a month from the date of service of summons. On the basis of list furnished by the defendant, the lower Appellate Court further recorded a finding that the defendant has complied with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the decree passed by the trial Court was reversed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower Appellate Court grossly erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the lower Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the defendant during the pendency of the suit committed default in making payment of rent for the months of May and June, 1994, May, 1995 and February, 1996 in accordance with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act and, therefore, the decree under section 12(1)(a) ought to have been granted. It is also urged that there is no evidence on record to show that entire arrears of rent were deposited by the appellant within a period of two months from the date of service of notice and section 13(1) of the Act casts a statutory duty on the tenant to deposit the rent, therefore, mere withdrawal of rent does not amount, to waiver. While referring to decision of Supreme Court in the case of Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co., AIR 1959 SC 689, it was submitted that when a statute prescribes a mode of doing particular thing in particular manner, that thing has to be done in that manner alone. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Waman Shriniwas Kini (supra), Mangilal v. Sugan Chand Rathi (deceased after him his heirs and legal representatives and another, 1964 MPLJ (S.C.) 124 = AIR 1965 SC 101, Sarup Singh Gupta v. Jagdish Singh and others, AIR 2006 SC 1734, Voltas Ltd. v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SC 569, Mohd. Ishak and others v. Hafiz Ibrahim and others, 1980 JLJ 423.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on receipt of summons within a period of one month the entire arrears of rent was deposited, therefore, the lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed the finding wi