PRAKASH CHAND Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction interalia on the ground that the defendant-appellant committed default in the payment of rent. The trial Court determined the arrears of rent and the appellant deposited the same. The suit was decided on 2.4.1986. Later on, the plaintiff-respondent filed second suit on 1.2.1987, with the allegations that the defendant committed second default in the payment of rent for the period from 1.3.1986 to 30.6.1987. The learned Munsiff Magistrate, Ajmer (East), Ajmer vide his judgment and decree dated 24.1.1992, decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendant- appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer, vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1994. This decree has been challenged in this Second Appeal by the defendant.

(2.) The only submission of counsel for the appellant is that the defendant was depositing rent in previous suit under Sec. 19A of the Rajasthan (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). After the decision of that suit the defendant-appellant continued to deposit the rent under Sec. 19A of the Act, in the said Court and as such he did not commit any default.

(3.) Counsel for the plaintiff respondent submits that even for the sake of arguments, it be taken that the defendant- appellant deposited rent under Sec. 19A the deposit was not valid. The defendant appellant neither offered the rent to the plaintiff nor sent money-orders, nor asked the plaintiff to supply his bank-account number. Under such circumstances, the deposit was not in accordance with clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Sec. 19A and as such the appellant cannot get protection of Sub-Section 4 of Sec. 19A. In support of his submission Mr. Goyal, placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ganpat Lal and another, reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 729 .