JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---This Special Civil Application is filed by the landlord-plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sangli, on June 8, 1973 in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1972. 2. The petitioner is the landlord-owner of house No. 57/A Vakharbhag, Sangli, and opponents Nos. 1 2 are the tenants of the suit house consisting of 12½ khans on the ground floor of Survey No. 57/1, Vakharbhag, Sangli. The landlord-petitioner terminated the tenancy of the opponents-tenant by a notice dated October 21, 1970, which is Ex. 31 on record, and thereafter he filed Civil Suit No. 76 of 1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli, for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the opponents were in arrears of rent for more than six months, that the petitioner wanted the suit premises for bona fide and personal use and occupation and that the suit premises were originally used for the purposes of a shop and a godown and the opponents were using it by changing the user of the premises for residential purpose. 3. The suit was contested by the opponents contending, inter alia, that they had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 247 of 1970 against the landlord-petitioner for repairs of the suit premise and they had deposited the amount of arrears of rent in the Court, in the Reg. Civil Suit No. 247 of 1970, till the end of June 1971. They have also further stated that the amount of rent due for the month of July-August 1971 has also been deposited. They denied that the landlord required the suit premises for personal use and occupation and they have changed the user of the premises for their residential purposes. 4. The learned II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli after recording the evidence in the case was pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs suit, holding that the opponents were in arrears of rent, that the landlord did not require the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his personal use and occupation and that the opponents-tenant have not changed the user of the suit premises as alleged by the landlord. 5. The petitioner-landlord feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court preferred an appeal to the District Court, bearing Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1972. 5. The petitioner-landlord feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court preferred an appeal to the District Court, bearing Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1972. The said appeal was heard by the learned Assistant Judge, Sangli, who was pleased to confirm the decision of the lower Court and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned Assistant Judge, Sangli, present Special Civil Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. M.A. Rane, who appears on behalf of the petitioner-landlord contended that the findings recorded by the learned Assistant Judge, Sangli, are erroneous. His claim on the ground of bona fide requirements has been improperly rejected. Secondly, Mr. Rane submitted that the deposit in the Civil Court by the tenant in respect of the amount of arrears of rent of the suit premises would not be a valid tender or it cannot be said that the deposit of arrears of rent would be considered as an unconditional tender of the amount due. So far as the bona fide requirement of the suit-premises is concerned, both the courts below have held that the landlord failed to prove his bona fide requirement. While exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence on the record and to interfere with the finding recorded by both the courts below. There is no substance in the contention raised by Mr. Rane that the finding with regard to bona fide require of the suit-premises was improper or untenable. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of fact concurrently recorded by both the courts below. 7. Mr. M.A. Rane, argued at length in respect of the other finding, viz. whether the deposit of arrears of rent in the Court would amount to a valid tender. There is no dispute that standard rent of the suit premises was fixed at the rate of Rs. 30/-. It is also not disputed that the opponents deposited the amount of Rs. 210/-, exact rent of six months, on September 29, 1970 in the Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 247 of 1970. There is no dispute that standard rent of the suit premises was fixed at the rate of Rs. 30/-. It is also not disputed that the opponents deposited the amount of Rs. 210/-, exact rent of six months, on September 29, 1970 in the Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 247 of 1970. It is also not in dispute that the opponents tenants replied on November 11, 1970 at Exhibit 32 to the notice issued by the landlord terminating their tenancy by the notice at Exh. 31 dated October 21, 1970. In reply, Ex. 32, the opponents informed the landlord that they have already deposited the rent in the Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 247 of 1970. The said Suit No. 247 of 1970 was filed by the opponents-tenants against their landlord-petitioner for a mandatory injunction to carry out certain repairs. It is also not in dispute that the said suit was contested by the landlord, and they had a notice and knowledge that the tenants have deposited the amount of arrears of rent in the said suit. With these admitted facts, Mr. Rane submitted that the said deposit in the Court is like a deposit in a Bank over the landlord had no control. Tender of the arrears of rent should be unconditional payment. Mr. Rane further submitted that if the amount is directed to be deposit in the Court he had to make an application for the withdrawal of the said amount and it was subjected to the order of the Court. The tenants could have opposed the withdrawal of the amount of the deposit by the landlord, and accordingly, the deposit in the Court cannot be said to be unconditional payment of the arrears of rent. Mr. Rane submitted that the tender to be valid defence must be absolute and unconditional and accompanied by the production of money or the specific thing. In support of his contention he drew my attention to the dictionary meaning of the word tender in Aiyers Law Terms and Phrases (1973 Edn). He also cited the dictionary meaning of the word tender in Jowitts Dictionary of English Law, Second Edition by John Burke, Volumn 2 (L-Z). At page 1751, it is stated that tender means-- "an offer by a debtor to his creditor of the amount of the debt. He also cited the dictionary meaning of the word tender in Jowitts Dictionary of English Law, Second Edition by John Burke, Volumn 2 (L-Z). At page 1751, it is stated that tender means-- "an offer by a debtor to his creditor of the amount of the debt. The offer must be in money, which must be actually produced to the creditor, unless by words or Acts he waives production; therefore, a mere statement by the debtor that he has the money in his possession ready for payment is not sufficient, even if the creditor says he will not receive it. But if the debtor brings the money in purses or bags, it is not necessary to show or count it, because that is "the usual manner to carry money in, and then it is the part of the party that is to receive it to put it out and tell it." The offer must also be unconditional, it need not be made by the debtor personally to the creditor personally; it may be made through an authorised agent and a tender to one of several joint creditors is sufficient........A cheque paid by a banker is evidence of receipt by the payee although unindorsed". From these two dictionaries Mr. Rane relied upon the dictionary meaning of the word tender and he submitted that a deposit in Court is a not a tender because the said payment or deposit is not unconditional or absolute. 8. We are not concerned with the tender of the amount. Having regard to the provisions of section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, what has got to be proved is that the tender includes making of payment until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2). In view of this wording of section 13(3)(a) the Court is called upon to decide as to whether the tenant neglected to make payment of the arrears of rent until the expiration of the period of one month after the notice referred to in sub-section (2). In the instant case, as stated above there is dispute that the entire amount of arrears of rent were deposited on or about September 29, 1970. The tenants-opponents by their reply dated 11-11-1970, categorically stated that the entire arrears of rent have been deposited. I specifically asked Mr. In the instant case, as stated above there is dispute that the entire amount of arrears of rent were deposited on or about September 29, 1970. The tenants-opponents by their reply dated 11-11-1970, categorically stated that the entire arrears of rent have been deposited. I specifically asked Mr. Rane as to whether landlord had made any application for withdrawal of amount after receipt of reply dated November 11,1970, and was there any objection at instant of opponent-tenants for withdrawal of said amount. In fairness, Mr. Rane stated that there was no application on behalf of landlord for withdrawal of amount and there was not objection. Whatsoever on behalf of tenants for withdrawal of said amount and still Mr. Rane submitted that deposit in Court is not unconditional or absolute tender of amount. In fairness to this Court Mr. Rane brought to my notice a decision of this Court in (Bai Mohinabai Dharmsey v. Khimji Tokarshi Jivraj anothers)1, A.I.R. 1976 Bom. 295 wherein this Court has taken a view that the legislature has used the words, the tenant neglects to make payment, the intention is very clearly by use of word neglect. It shows that there is something deliberate and something more than mere failure to pay the amount. In present case, undisputedly, entire arrears of rent have been deposited in Court. The tenant informed the landlord about said deposit by them in Court by their reply dated November 11, 1970, within one month of date of notice to quit which was issued on October 21, 1970. The landlord has never cared to withdraw the amount. In the said circumstances, it is not open to landlord to submit that the said deposit in Court was conditional or was not absolute. Accordingly, I hold that tenants have not neglected to make payment of arrears of rent until expiry of period of one month after receipt of notice to quit, and therefore, there is no contravention of provisions of section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act. Both the Court below rightly held that the landlord failed to prove that tenants were in arrears of rent of more six months. 9. In the result, Special Civil Application No. 2913 of 1973 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioners to pay the costs of this application to the opponents 1 and 2 in one set. -----