MANAK BAI Vs. KALYAN BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction based on the ground of default in payment of rent under Sec. 33 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). It has been found by the courts below that the defendant-respondent had sent the rent for the period from 1st April, 1977 to 31st July, 1977 by a money order which was accepted by the appellant. The case of the defendant-respondent is that thereafter a money order for Rs. 37. 20 on account of rent for the period 1st August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 was sent by him on 23rd December, 1977 and the same was refused by the plantiff and was received back, and that another money order for Rs 52. 06 in respect of; rent for the period 1st August. 1977 to 28th February, 1978 was sent on 28th March, 1978 which was also not accepted and a third money order for Rs. 74. 37 in respect of the rent for the period 1st August, 1977 to. 31st May, 1978 was sent on 26th June 1978 which was also refused.

(2.) SHRI Kejriwal, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if it be assumed that the respondent had sent the money order for Rs. 37. 20 on 23rd December, 1977 for rent for the period 1st August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 towards rent and the same was refused by the appellant there was default in payment of rent for the months of August, September, October and November, 1977. , SHRI Kejriwal has urged that after the refusal by the appellant of the said money order it was incumbent upon the respondent to have deposited the rent in Court under Section 19 (A) (3) of the Act and in view of the failure on the part of the respondent to deposit the rent for the period from 1st August, 1977 onwards in the Court he should be treated to be a defaulter under section 13 (i) (a) of the Act. SHRI Kejriwal has also contended that the default in payment of rent need not be continuous for a period of six months and that the total period of default should be six months even though there may be a break in between. In this context SHRI Kejriwal has placed reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in (1.) Hanuman Das Vs. Sanwal Ram (1 ).

(3.) AS a result of the amendments introduced in Section 13, Sub-Section (3) has been substituted and the following provisions have been made in Sub-sections (4) of Section 19-A: - " (4): - For the purpose of clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 a tenant shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him, if he has paid, remitted or deposited the amount of rent by any of the methods specified in Sub-section (3)". Taking into consideration the aforesaid amendments that have been introduced in Sections 13 and 19-A by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976 and more particulars the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 19-A. I am of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai (supra) needs reconsideration. I, therefore, refer the following question for the consideration of a Larger Bench: (1) Whether the law laid down in Subhraj v. Bhanwar Lal (supra) is no longer a good law in view of the amendments introduced in Section 19-A of the Act by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976. (2) Whether in view of sub-section (4) of Section 19-A of the Act a tenant can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in pay-ment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, unless he fulfills requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act? The papers may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate directions. .