STEPHEN DSILVA Vs. JAIPUR CHALCHITRA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment & decree dated October 4, 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 18/90, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which, the judgment & decree dated February 2, 1990 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur was confirmed.

(2.) THIS Civil Second Appeal has been filed, in which, following three substantial questions of law are involved : " (i) Whether a tenant can deposit rent in the Court under Section 19-A without first taking recourse to the provision of Sec. 19-A (3) (a) and (b) of the Act. (ii) Whether any deposit made against the provisions of Section 19a is a valid deposit and the landlord can not get a decree for that amount from the Court. (iii) Whether the Appellant is a 'landlord' of the respondent with regard to. the share of rent of the minors and he is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the respondent. "

(3.) SECTION 19-A was inserted in the Act in the year 1976 with a view to remove difficulties of tenants in paying rent to the landlord in certain situations. The SECTION 19-A, therefore, provides for depositing rent in Court. If the rent is deposited in Court after following the procedure laid down under the said section then the tenant will be absolved from paying the rent for that particular period to the landlord, the amount of which has been deposited in Court. It is, therefore, mandatory to follow the procedure laid down in SECTION-19a to get the advantage of the provisions of this SECTION. Sub-SECTION (3) of SECTION 19-A lays down the methods, by which, the rent can be deposited in Court by a tenant. It provides that rent can be sent by money order or tenant may give notice in writing to the landlord to specify a bank and account number, in which, the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord. Clause (c) of sub- section (3) provides as under : - " (c) Where he has remitted the rent by postal money- order under clause (a) and the money order is received back by him under a postal endorsement of refusal or unfound and where the landlord does not specify a bank and account number under clause (b) or where there is bonafide doubt as to the person or persons the whom rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the court within fifteen days of the expiry of the period of ten days referred to in clause (b) and in the case of such bonafide doubt as aforesaid, within fifteen days of the time referred to in sub-section (1) and further continue to deposit with the court any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises. " In the matter under consideration neither the rent was sent by postal money order nor any notice was given to Mrs. Patricia regarding payment of rent. If there was any bonafide doubt as to person or persons to whom the rent had to be deposited in court within 10 days/15 days referred to in clause (b) or in sub-section (1) of the Act. The tenant is thereafter, expected to further continue to deposit any rent, which may subsequently become due in respect of premises. None of this procedure was followed and amount of arrears of rent was deposited in the Court u/s 19-A of the Act. Since the address/whereabouts of Mrs. Patricia were not known and no notice could be issued to her from Court regarding the deposit of rent, the application u/s 19a was rightly dismissed. Thus, it is evident that the deposit of rent in the Court u/s 19-A was illegal and against the mandatory provisions of section 19 A of the Act. It can, therefore, be said that the respondent did not exhaust the methods laid down in sub-section (3) and (4) of the Act, therefore, such deposit of rent is invalid and such account of rent remains outstanding dbspite its deposit in Court.