R.S. VERMA, J. — This is a defendants Special Appeal in suit for ejectment based on the ground of second default. The trial court held in favour of the defendant that there was no second default whereas the learned Single Judge has reversed that finding and has decreed the suit. 2. The defendants contention that there was no second default was based on the fact that before the expiry of six months the rent had already been deposited in court u/s 19-A Raj. Premises Act and, therefore, the tenant could not be said to have committed a second default. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that for the deposit of rent u/s 19-A the necessary conditions were not fulfilled by the defendant, i.e. he had not tendered the rent by money order, before depositing the same u/s. 19-A. Therefore more depositing the rent in court would not absolve the defendant from default. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, urged that u/s 19-A (3), the tenant is permitted to pay rent personally also and, therefore, in this case when the tenant had offered the rent to the landlord who refused the same and then the deposit was made, the deposit was a valid deposit and would absolve the defendant from default. But we are not inclined to accept this contention and in our view, the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge is correct. The very words of sub sec. (c) of s. 19-A would made it clear that the deposit in court can be made only where a tenet has remitted the rent by postal money order under clause(a) and the money order is received back by him under postal endorsement of refusal or unfound where the landlord does not specify a bank and account number under clause (b) or where there is bonafide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable. In referring to clause (a) in clause (c) the only mode of payment by sending a postal money order has been envisaged and the other mode of payment by personal payment has not been referred to. Therefore, if a tenant alleges that he had offered the rent personally to the land lord and it was refused, he cannot resort to sub-s. (3) of s. 19-A and deposit the rent in court. Therefore, if a tenant alleges that he had offered the rent personally to the land lord and it was refused, he cannot resort to sub-s. (3) of s. 19-A and deposit the rent in court. Before making such a deposit, he will have to send the rent by money order. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and according to us the appeal deserves to be rejected. 7. We accordingly, reject the same.