Skip to content


Jagdish Kumar and ors. Vs. Roop Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision No. 351 of 1969
Judge
Reported in1969WLN455
AppellantJagdish Kumar and ors.
RespondentRoop Chand
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
.....rent is tendered to the landlord personally or by money order. if the landlord refuses to accept rent tendered to him either personally or by money order, then it is the duty of the tenant to deposit the rent in court.;(c) rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950 - section 19a(2) and 13(3) & (4)--conflict between section 13(3) & 19a(2)--operation of section 13(3).;in view of the conflict between section 19a(2) and section 13(3) the operation of section 13(3) is to be confined only for the purpose of clause (a) of sub-section (1). if rent is sent by money order and it is not accepted then it would not amount to payment or rent within the meaning of section 13(4). - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007,..........month for which it is payable. clause (2) lays down that where the land lord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in sub-section (1) or where there is bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the court and such deposit of rent shall be a full discharge of the tenant from the liability to pay rent to the landlord.5. this clause is applicable where the rent is tendered to the landlord personally or by money order. if the landlord refuses to accept rent tendered to him either personally or by money order, then it is the duty of the tenant to deposit the rent in court.6. my attention was drawn to section 13(3) which lays down that for the purpose of clause (a) of sub-section (1) a.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This a revision application by the defendants against an appellate order of the District Judge, Kota. confirming an order of the Munsif, Kota, striking out their defence under Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for eviction inter alia on the ground of default on 20-3-67. On the first day of hearing the court passed an order under Section 13(4) determining the arrears of rent payable upto date together with interest and the amount was duly deposited by the defendants in court on the same day. Bat the defendants were required under Section 13(4) to continue to deposit or pay month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at the rate at which it was paid in the past. The defendants committed default in paying or depositing rent for the months of May 1967 and November, 1967, and therefore their defence was struck out.

3. On behalf of the defendants it is contended that the rent for May 1967 fell due on 15-6-67 when the civil courts were closed for the summer vacations. The defendants sent the rent for may 1967 by money order on 6-6-67 which was refused by the plaintiff. They again sent it by money order on 15-6-67 and the same was again refused by the plaintiff and the money was returned to them on 3-7-67 Rent for May 1967 was then deposited in court on 12-7-67. It is contended that as rent was sent by money order which was refused, that was tantamount to payment of rent within the meaning of Section 13(4).

4. There was a decision of this Court that if the tenant sends rent by money order to the landlord and the latter refuses to accept it then the tenant need not send the rent again to him either by money order or tender it to him personally. It was to nullify the effect of the ruling that Section 19A was introduced in the Act. Clause (1) of it lays down that every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract by the 15th day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. Clause (2) lays down that where the land lord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in Sub-section (1) or where there is bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the court and such deposit of rent shall be a full discharge of the tenant from the liability to pay rent to the landlord.

5. This Clause is applicable where the rent is tendered to the landlord personally or by money order. If the landlord refuses to accept rent tendered to him either personally or by money order, then it is the duty of the tenant to deposit the rent in court.

6. My attention was drawn to Section 13(3) which lays down that for the purpose of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) a tenant shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him, if he has remitted such amount to the landlord by postal money order at his ordinary address. In view of the conflict between Section 19A(2) and Section 13(3) the operation of Section 13(3) is to be confined only for the purpose of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1). If rent is sent by money order and it is not accepted then it would not amount to payment of rent within the meaning of Section 13(4).

7. There was thus default in the payment of rent for May 1967. Again there was a default in the payment of rent for November 1967. The challan for it was presented on 16-12-67 because it bears the signatures of the Munsarim dated 16-12-67. If it had been presented on 15-12-67 then the Munsarim would have signed it on that date.

8. The order of the appellate court is therefore correct and the revision application is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //