JUDGMENT 1. - Though both the appeals arise in different suits and have been filed against different judgments and decrees but in the these appeals points of law involved are common and, therefore, both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. First I will give brief facts of the cases and then deal with the common points involved. 2. Civil Appeal No. 312/80 arises out of civil suit No. 68/80 (8/79) filed by the respondent Kishan Lal, against Bhoujumal for eviction of a portion of a house No. 1878 situated in Khajane-walon Ka Rasta, Jaipur. The suit premises were on rent with the appellant at Rs. 24/- PM. The only ground on which the suit for eviction was filed was under Section 13(i)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (herein after referred to as the Act) to the effect that the rent due from May 6, 1977 has not been paid and thus the rent for more than six months was due. The rent the period September 6, 1977 to January 5, 1979 was claimed. The learned trial Court under Section 13(3) of the Act provisionally determined the amount of rent for the period May 6, 1977 to the date of the order by its order dated July 25, 1979. The arrears of rent and interest determined were paid by the appellant on October 5, 1979. On the same date the rent for two months i.e. for the period July 6, 1979 to September 5, 1979 amounting to Rs. 48/- was paid. It was accepted by the learned Advocate for respondent against a receipt. On the same either before accepting the rent or thereafter an application under Section 13(5) of the Act by the respondent praying that because the appellant has not complied in the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Act his defence against eviction be struck out. An application was filed on February 11, 1980 on behalf of the appellant that his defence against eviction cannot be struck out and because the suit was based only on default and the amount determined under Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act has been paid the suit should be dismissed. 3. An application was filed on February 11, 1980 on behalf of the appellant that his defence against eviction cannot be struck out and because the suit was based only on default and the amount determined under Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act has been paid the suit should be dismissed. 3. Civil Appeal No. 313/80 arises out of a civil suit No. 62/80 (7/79) filed by the respondent against the appellant, Jethanand for eviction on the ground under Section 13(i)(a) of the Act that the appellant has neither paid nor tendered rent due for six months. It was averred in the plaint that the suit premises were on rent with the appellant with effect from September 9, 1967 at Rs. 39/- P.M. Thereafter, the rent was increased to Rs. 44/- P.M. The rent has neither been paid nor tendered by the appellant with effect from May 9, 1977. In the suit rent from September 9, 1977 to the date of the suit was claimed. The learned trial Court provisionally determined the amount of arrears of rent and interest under its order dated July 25, 1979. On October 5, 1979 the amount so determined was paid to the advocate for the respondent. On the same date rent for two months for the period July 9, 1979 to September 8, 1979 amounting to Rs. 88/- was also paid to the Advocate for the respondent. An application was filed on behalf of the respondent that because the appellant has not complied with the provisions of sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Act in as much as he had not paid the rent for the period July 9, 1979 to August 8, 1979 within time allowed under sub-section (4) of the Section 13 of the Act his defence against eviction be struck out. An application was filed on behalf of the appellant on February 11, 1980 that because the suit was based only on the ground of default and the amount determined under sub-section 3 of Section 13 of the Act has been paid, the suit should be dismissed. 4. The learned trial Court holding that the rent in case of Jethanand for the period July 9, 1979 to August 8, 1979 has not been paid with in time and even within extended time the defence against eviction of the appellant was liable to be struck out, ordered accordingly. 4. The learned trial Court holding that the rent in case of Jethanand for the period July 9, 1979 to August 8, 1979 has not been paid with in time and even within extended time the defence against eviction of the appellant was liable to be struck out, ordered accordingly. In the case of Bhoujumal holding that the rent for the month beginning from July 6, 1979 to August 5, 1979 has not been paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4), of Section 13 of the Act within extended time of 15 days the defence against eviction was ordered to be struck out. 5. In both the appeals it has been contended by the learned advocate for the appellants that by accepting the rent on October 5, 1979 the respondent waived his right seeking an order that the defence against eviction of the appellants be struck out. The first question, therefore, which calls for determination is as to whether the conduct of the Advocate for the respondent in accepting the rent even after the extended period with in the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act amounts to waiver of the right of the respondent to get an order that the defence against eviction of the appellant be struck out the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent is that it is a statutory obligation on a tenant to continue depositing rent amount month by month by the 15th of subsequent month and in case the rent is neither deposited nor paid in accordance with the statutory provisions the acceptance of amount of rent thereafter does not amount to waiver. It is further contended by him that waiver is the intentional abandonment of one's right and in the facts and circumstances of these two cases that an application under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act for an order striking out the defence against eviction of the appellant was moved even before accepting the rent, it does not amount to waiver. The learned Advocate has shown to me the order-sheet of October 5, 1979 wherein there is only mention of the application under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act having been filed on behalf of the respondent and there is no mention that the payment of rent for two months was made and was accepted. The learned Advocate has shown to me the order-sheet of October 5, 1979 wherein there is only mention of the application under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act having been filed on behalf of the respondent and there is no mention that the payment of rent for two months was made and was accepted. The controversy as to whether the rent for two months was first accepted by the learned Advocate and thereafter the application under such sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act was moved, should not detain me any further, because to my mind the very fact that an application under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act was filed the same day, may be after accepting the amount, does to show that the amongst was not accepted with the intention to abandon his right to get an order that defence against eviction of the appellants be struck out. It cannot be disputed that one has a right to waive and agree to waive that advantage of the right which may solely be for the benefit and protection of the individual. Therefore, even if it may be statutory requirement that a tenant should continue depositing the rent in the Court or paying to the landlord month by month by the 15th of subsequent month or within such extended time not exceeding 15 days, still the landlord for whose benefit the provisions of sub-section 13 of the Act have been made can waive his right to seek an order of getting the defence against eviction of a tenant struck out. But it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the amount is accepted or withdrawn from the Court reserving one's right under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act then it will not amount to waiver as it cannot be said in those circumstances that the landlord has intentionally abandoned his right to get an order under sub-section 5 of the Section 13 of the Act. If the amount is accepted or withdrawn from the Court reserving one's right under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act then it will not amount to waiver as it cannot be said in those circumstances that the landlord has intentionally abandoned his right to get an order under sub-section 5 of the Section 13 of the Act. But in case, the amount is accepted without any reservation, then depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case the conduct in accepting the amount of rent after the period prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act may amount to waiver of the right of the landlord to get an order under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act that the defence of the defendant against eviction be struck out. Mr. Rastogi, the learned Advocate for the respondent, has referred to Section 19(D) of the Act and submits that if during the pendency of the proceedings any rent is accepted this conduct of the landlord will not amount to waiver. But Section 19(D) of the Act only refers to a case where the acceptance of rent for the period of defaults by the landlord from the tenant where no proceedings are pending in a Court operates as a waiver of a default, if any. It has nothing to do with the acceptance of rent after the extended time as mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act is concerned. Therefore, I am of this opinion that in the facts and circumstances of a particulars case acceptance of rent beyond the period or extended time as prescribed in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act may amount to waiver. But in facts and circumstances of this case when the application was filed on the same day when the amount of rent was accepted beyond the extended period as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act there can be no intention of the respondent to abandon his right to seek an order under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. It is not disputed in these cases that rent for one month was paid even after the extended time of 15 days as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, because it was accepted either after the application was filed or even earlier, it does not amount to waiver of the right of the respondent to get an order under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. 6. The next contention of Mr. Kasliwal, learned Advocate for the appellant, is that the suit was filed on one ground mentioned in sub-section (i)(a) of Section 13 of the Act and the amount of rent provisionally determined by the Court along with the interest was paid on October 5, 1979 and, therefore, the suit should have been dismissed and an order under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act striking out the defence of the appellant should have been made but to my mind, the provisional rent and interest was determined on July 25, 1979, and if the amount determined would have been paid immediately or before the rent for one month more would have become due then the suit could not have been decreed on the ground of default though the matter of default under Section 13(i)(e) of the Act had to be finally decided by the Court. But if by the time the amount is paid the rent for subsequent period falls due then it is the duty of the tenant under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act not only to deposit in the Court or pay to the land lord the amount of rent determined by the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act within 15 days from the date of the determination or from such date within such further time not exceeding three months as extended by the Court (sic) but also to continue to deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which the determination has been made by 15th of each subsequent month or within such further time not exceeding 15 days as may be extended by the Court at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. In case the tenant fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act, under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act is the duty of the Court to order defence against eviction of the tenant to be struck off. In the instant case there is no dispute, that the rate for one month was not paid even within the extended time for which also there is no specific order of the Court. Therefore, in view of sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Act the defence of the appellant against eviction was rightly struck out.The result is, that there is no force in both the appeals and both the appeals are dismissed with costs. Any how in both the appeals six months time is allowed to the appellant to vacate the suit premises subject to the appellants paying arrears, if any, and continue paying rent for these six months to the respondent-landlord and also give an undertaking the after the expiry of the period of the six months, they will hand over vacant possession to the landlord-respondent. Undertaking should be given in the trial Court within a period of seven days.Appeals dismissed. *******