Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal arises in a case under the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Order of 1950. On 10.3.1952 the Rent Controller, Kottayam, passed an order directing the tenant in this case to pay to the land-lord within two weeks from the date of the order all arrears of rent due till the date of payment with interest thereon at 61/4 per cent per year and allowing the land-lord to evict the tenant after one month from the date of the order if he defaulted to pay the arrears as directed within the specified time. On 22.3.1952 the tenant sent the amount to the land-lord by a postal money order. The land-lord refused the money order, according to the tenant without any lawful excuse, and according to the land-lord because the money order was taken to him only long after the time limit fixed by the Rent Controller. On 7.5.1952 the tenant deposited in the Taluk Office, under Cl. 8 of the Buildings Lease and Rent Control Order and the Government Notification R. Dis. 6549/50/P.W.C. dated 6.12.1951, all arrears of rent due till then. His case is that the money order refused by the land-lord was received back by him only on 8.4.1952, that it was only on that date that he came to know of the land-lord's refusal of the money order, and that the thirty days' time from the date of refusal allowed by the Notification of 6.12.1951 to make the deposit begins, therefore, only from 8.4.1952. On 16.5.1952 the land-lord filed a petition in the Kottayam Munsiff's Court praying for execution of the Rent Controller's order dated 10.3.1952 and eviction of the tenant from the building on the ground that the latter had defaulted to pay the arrears of rent within the time allowed by that order. The tenant opposed the application contending that he had sent the arrears to the land-lord by a money order within the time allowed by the Rent Controller, that on the refusal of the money order by the land-lord which came to his knowledge only on 8.4.1952 he had deposited the amount under the notification mentioned above on 7.5.1952, that the said deposit was sufficient compliance of the Rent Controller's order, and that the land-lord was not therefore entitled to evict him from the building. He also filed an affidavit in support of his objection petition. He also filed an affidavit in support of his objection petition. But in the affidavit there is no mention of the date on which the money order was taken to the land-lord for payment and refused by him. The land-lord filed a counter-affidavit on 9.6.1952 controverting the tenant's objections. In the counter-affidavit it was stated that the land-lord refused the money order because it was brought to him for payment long after the time allowed by the Rent Controller and that the tenant had therefore failed to comply with the Rent Controller's order and the land-lord was competent to execute that order and evict him from the building. The District Munsiff rejected the land-lord's execution application by a short order which reads as follows: "As per the order, the counter-petitioner has sent by M.O. the arrears due Rs. 85 on 22.3.1952 which the petitioner refused on 8.5.52 and hence the counter-petitioner has deposited the amount before the Taluk Office under S. 8 and has filed certificate. Hence execution cannot proceed and the petition is hence rejected". Against this order the land-lord filed an appeal in the Kottayam District Court, and the learned Additional District Judge of that court who heard the appeal dismissed the same, holding that as the tenant had sent the amount to the land-lord within a reasonable time before the expiry of time limit fixed by the Controller and the refusal of the money order came to his knowledge only on 8.4.1952, the deposit made on 7.4.1952 was sufficient compliance of the Rent Controller's order. The land-lord has filed this second appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge. 2. The view of the courts below that a mere remittance of the money order within the time limit fixed by the Controller would be a proper tender of the amount is clearly untenable. According to the Rent Controller's order, the arrears had to be paid to the land-lord on or before 24.3.1952. Until and unless the tenant proves that the amount was actually taken to the land-lord and offered to him for payment there cannot be said to have been any lawful tender. The mere remittance of the amount by a money order would not constitute a lawful tender at all. Until and unless the tenant proves that the amount was actually taken to the land-lord and offered to him for payment there cannot be said to have been any lawful tender. The mere remittance of the amount by a money order would not constitute a lawful tender at all. Until the Post peon pays the money order to the payee it is open to the remitter to recall the money order under S. 44 of the Post Office Act. Till the money is actually paid to the payee the property in the amount remitted by the money order remains with the remitter and not with the payee, and until the peon takes the money order to the payee to make the payment the latter does not even know that the amount is being offered to him. There can be no tender without the person to whom the amount is tendered being made aware of the offer. The date of tender is therefore the date on which the peon took the money order to the land-lord for payment and not the date on which the tenant handed in the money order to the Postal authorities. Before the peon took the money order to the land-lord it could not even be ascertained whether the remittance would be revoked or not by the remitter. In support of his contention that mere remittance by money order within the time fixed by the Rent Controller, without the Post peon taking the money order to the payee for payment, would be a sufficient tender the respondent's counsel relied upon the case Neelakantan v. Kerala Gilt Edged Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Quilon, 1951 K.L.T. 789 = 7 D.L.R. Travancore-Cochin 112 in which it has been held: "Where sending premium by money order is one of the approved or sanctioned methods of payment between the insured and the Insurance Company, premium sent by money order before due date will be in time even if it is received by the Company after the due date". But the facts of the present case are entirely different. There is no suggestion here that the land-lord had agreed, or the usual practice was, to the rent being sent to him by money order. In view of the Rent Controller's order the money had to be taken to the land-lord for payment to him on or before 24.3.1952. But the facts of the present case are entirely different. There is no suggestion here that the land-lord had agreed, or the usual practice was, to the rent being sent to him by money order. In view of the Rent Controller's order the money had to be taken to the land-lord for payment to him on or before 24.3.1952. If the money order in this case was taken to the land-lord within the time limit fixed by the Controller and then refused by him there would be a proper tender and a refusal of it; and then alone would it be open to the tenant to deposit the amount in the Taluk Office under Cl. 8 of the Buildings Lease and Rent Control Order and the Government Notification dated 6th December 1951. 3. There has been no attempt in this case on the part of the tenant to prove that the money order was actually taken to the land-lord for payment within the time limit fixed by the Rent Controller. The learned judge who disposed of the appeal in the District Court thought that the land-lord had not filed any affidavit regarding the date of the refusal of the money order by him. In paragraph 3 of his counter-affidavit the land-lord has stated very clearly that money order was taken to him for payment only long after 24.3.1952. In this affidavit of 7.6.1952, the tenant had studiously avoided mentioning the date on which the money order was taken to the land-lord for payment and refused by him. Even after the counter-affidavit was filed by the land-lord on 9.6.1952 the tenant has not cared to adduce any evidence or file an affidavit regarding the date on which the money order was taken to the land-lord and refused by him. On the refusal of the money order by the land-lord, the money order form would have been delivered back to the tenant with the endorsement of refusal written on it by the peon. That form would be the best evidence as regards the date on which the money order was taken to the land-lord for payment and refused by him. The tenant has not cared to produce that form in court or examined the delivery peon who took the money order to the land-lord for payment. That form would be the best evidence as regards the date on which the money order was taken to the land-lord for payment and refused by him. The tenant has not cared to produce that form in court or examined the delivery peon who took the money order to the land-lord for payment. It is stated in the affidavit on 7.6.1952 that the money order form returned to the tenant on the refusal of the land-lord had been produced by him in the Taluk Office. If that were so, the tenant could have easily called for it from the Taluk Office and produced the same in court. In the circumstances, I hold that the tenant has not proved in this case that there was a valid tender and refusal of the amount to the land-lord within the time fixed by the Rent Controller. It follows, that the deposit made by the tenant on 7.5.1952 is not sufficient compliance of the Rent Controller's order. As he has defaulted to pay the arrears within the time fixed by the Rent Controller's order, the land-lord is entitled to execute the order dated 10.3.1952 and evict the tenant from the building. 4. In the result, the orders of the courts below are set aside and it is hereby ordered that the tenant has failed to comply with the Rent Controller's order of 10.3.1952 and that the land-lord is entitled to evict him from the building. The case is sent back to the District Munsiff's court for disposal of the execution petition in the light of this order. The Second Appeal is allowed as indicated above with costs. Allowed.