ACHAL CHAND Vs. CHUUNI LAL ZORAWAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point involved in this revision application is as to whether the Munsiff, Sirohi could have refused to accept the deposit Under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act') during the pendency of an appeal against the dismissal of the suit of the land lord for eviction.

(2.) THE appellant filed an application on 17.8.88 before the Munsiff, Sirohi Under Section 19A and 19 CC of the Act claiming therein that the appellant is a tenant @ Rs. 55 as rent for a month. According to him the rent was refused to be accepted by the land lord/non -applicant. The Munsiff issued a notice to the non -applicant who took a stand that a suit for ejectment between the parties was decided and appeal was pending against the decision and so long as the appeal was not disposed of, application Under Section 19 A of the Act could not be entertained. The Munsiff overruled the objection and accepted the deposit.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel and having perused the record, I am of the view that this revision application deserves to be allowed. No provision of law has been pointed out to me which provides that deposit under Section 19A could be refused on the ground of pendency of appeal between the parties. Under the scheme of the Act, it appears that Section 19 A is provided as a safety valve for a tenant who finds it difficult to make the landlord accept or receive the rent. It is only a safeguard against creation of an artificial default by the land lord. It is for this reason, the authority to which the payment is made Under Section 19A has to accept it without any detailed enquiry into the background of such payment. The authority has only to see that condition of Section 19A of the Act are prima facie fulfilled. If he is prima facie satisfied that rent was lendered and refused or a money order was sent and came back with an endoresement that it was refused or the land lord is not found on the address, he has to accept the deposit. Whether such payment will save the tenant from the rigours of other provisions of law is not to be seen or decided by the authority accepting payments Under Section 19A of the Act. Whether the payment would amount to compliance with the provisions of Sub -Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act or not is to be seen by the appellate court before whom the matter is pending. The Munsiff was not concerned as to whether deposit before him Under Section 19A would amount to compliance with the requirements of deposit of rent prescribed by Section 13 of the Act. The Munsiff was only concerned with the provisions of Section 19A and not with Section 13 of the Act.