JUDGMENT 1. - The following question has been referred to this Division Bench for its consideration. "Whether the words for six months' used in proviso of sub-clause (sic sub-section) (6) of Section 13 as well in Section 13(1)(a) should necessarily be continuous 6 months or not ? 2. Relevant facts may be mentioned in brief to show how this question was referred to a Larger Bench for consideration. This civil second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated December 15, 1986 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil appeal No. 54/85 affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City (West) dated July 18, 1985 in civil suit No. 294/83. This suit was filed claiming that the defendant-appellant neither tendered nor paid the rent for the period 1.10.1982 to 21.7.1983. The plaintiff-respondent further claimed that the defendant-appellant had made a second default. Therefore, decree for eviction may be passed in his favour. The defendant-appellant contested the case of the respondent-plaintiff and submitted that no second default was committed. 3. The learned Single Judge before whom civil second appeal was pending is of the view that in case of Hanuman Das and Ors, v. Sanwal Ram, 1982 RLR 916 , it was held by a Single Bench of this Court that default for period of 6 months may be in breaks and it is not necessary that the default should be for a continuous period of 6 months. The learned Judge was of the view that this needs re-consideration by a larger bench. Since this question has wide implication and will affect several cases pending on the ground of default under the Act in various Courts in Rajasthan, the members of the bar were allowed to intervene and express their view on this question. 4. It is contended by Shri Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Shri D.D. Patodia, B.L. Mandhana and G.C. Lunia that in sub- clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) & sub-sec. (6) of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') the words for 6 months have been used. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that both the lower courts have erred in interpreting the words for 6 months' to mean of 6 months'. (1) & sub-sec. (6) of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') the words for 6 months have been used. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that both the lower courts have erred in interpreting the words for 6 months' to mean of 6 months'. It is contended that the use of words for 6 months' clearly signifies that what is required is that a tenant shall be said to have committed default only when the rent is not paid for a continuous period of 6 months and not any 6 months with several breaks during course of several years. The learned counsel has referred to Siya Sadan v. Sagar Mal & others 1982 RLR 304 : 1982 WLN 118 , Bajrang Lal v. Ram Deo, (1988) 1 RLR 360 and Khajoolal v. Amarchand, 1973 WLN 841 , Shri D. D. Patodia, B.L. Mandhana and G. C. Lunia learned advocates also expressed the view that the meaning of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 is clear that the default should be for a continuous period of 6 months. It was also pointed out that this is also clear from the statement of object and reasons of the Amending Act of 1965 that the provisions were amended with a view to give protection to the tenant. If the contrary view is taken it will clearly give benefit to the landlord and not to the tenant whereas the Act was enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the tenants and to protect their rights. 5. Shri R.M. Jain learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and Shri R.S. Kejriwal contend that neither in sub clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 nor proviso to sub-section (r) of Section 13 it is anywhere provided that the default for a period of 6 months should be continuous. It is pointed out that before the amendment of the Act in the year 1965 the provision in sub clause (a) of sub-sec. ( 1) of Section 13 (illegible) that if a tenant makes three defaults of two months each in a period of 18 months he shall be liable to eviction. It is pointed out that before the amendment of the Act in the year 1965 the provision in sub clause (a) of sub-sec. ( 1) of Section 13 (illegible) that if a tenant makes three defaults of two months each in a period of 18 months he shall be liable to eviction. It is, therefore, pointed out that even earlier the intention of the legislature was that three defaults of 2 month, each need not be continuous and the same can be of separate periods during maximum limit of 18 months. It is, therefore, pointed out that what the legislature has changed is that there should be defaults for a period of 6 month, which means that instead of three defaults of 2 months each now the default required is to be of one month each. But there should be default for non-payment lot 6 months and no limit of any period during which such default in payment of rent for a period of 6 months is made, has been laid down. Therefore, the legislature has given further benefit to the tenant s now the tenant can be evicted only when rent has not been paid for a period of 6 months which means that now the tenant is protected even if he commits 5 defaults of one month each in payment of rent. A reference has been made to M/s. Batliboi & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Govind Narain, 1981 RLW 225 . 6. We have heard at length the counsel for both the parties as also the other learned advocates who appeared before us to express their view on the question. 7. Before we examine the arguments advanced by both sides, it will be necessary to go through the relevant provisions of the Act to analyse the effect and implication of such provisions. Sub-section (1) and clause (a) of Section 13 read, as under:-. 7. Before we examine the arguments advanced by both sides, it will be necessary to go through the relevant provisions of the Act to analyse the effect and implication of such provisions. Sub-section (1) and clause (a) of Section 13 read, as under:-. "Sec. 13 - Eviction of tenants - (l) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied ; (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months...." Sub-section (3) of Section 13 provides regarding provisional determination of the amount of rent and interest to be deposited as calculated by the Court. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 provides that tenant shall deposit in Court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the Court under sub-section (3) within it particular time and shall continue to deposit in Court or pay to the landlord rent month by month during the pendency of the proceedings. Sub-section (5) of Section 13 provides that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub- section (4) within the time specified the Court shall order defence against eviction to be struck-out. Sub-section (6) proved that if a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (4) no decree for eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) shall be passed by the court against him." Section 19-A of the Act lays down the procedure for payment, remittance and deposit of rent by tenant in Court. Section 19-B reads as wider:- "No rent deposited with the Court under Section 19-A shall be considered to have bean validly deposited under that section unless the deposit is made within the time specified in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of the said section." Section 19-CC provides regarding depositing of rent in advance by the tenant. 8. Thus it is clear from the provisions referred to above the word 'default' has not been defined anywhere in the Act. 8. Thus it is clear from the provisions referred to above the word 'default' has not been defined anywhere in the Act. What is provided in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 13 is that a tenant shall be liable to eviction if he has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him 'for 6 months'. Similarly in proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 13 it is provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under sub-section (6) if, having obtained such benefit or benefits under Section 13-A in respect of any such accommodation, if he again made, default in payment of rent of that accommodation for 6 months'. A reference may he made to Law Lexicon & Legal Maxims IInd edition by Venkataramaiya, in which meaning of word for' has been given on Page 83 of llnd Volume. It is stated therein that word for' is used for describing something that is continuous and occupies a certain length of time". Word 'default' has been defined in the Webstors is Third New International Dictionary 1976 Vol-1 Page 590 as failure to do something required by duty or law or to fail to fulfil a contract or agreement or to perform a duty or to fail to meet a financial obligation". Thus a tenant becomes defaulter if he fails to fulfil his financial obligation of paying rent in accordance with the provision laid down in the Act. 9. It may be noted that the main purpose of enacting this Act was to solve the problem of housing accommodation in the cities and towns of the State of Rajasthan. The shortage of accommodation tempted the owners of the premises to charge higher rate of rent and a tendency came up to cause evictions of the existing tenants by whatever means fair it foul to make it possible to induct new tenants on higher rent. Therefore, it is evident that this Act was enacted. keeping in view the difficulties of the tenants and with it view to give protection to them. Therefore, this Act is a beneficial enactment for the tenants. Therefore, it is evident that this Act was enacted. keeping in view the difficulties of the tenants and with it view to give protection to them. Therefore, this Act is a beneficial enactment for the tenants. However even when a particular Act is enacted to benefit it particular section of society keeping in view their genuine difficulties, still an effort is made by legislature to keep balance between all sections of the society who may be affected by the provisions of such an Act. 10. Before the Act was amended sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 was as under:- "(a) That the tenant has neither paid rent nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for any two month.; Provided that no eviction shall he ordered under this clause if the tenant pays in the court on the first day of hearing such arrears of rent together with the costs of the suit: Provided further that the tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of protection against eviction under this clause if he has made a like default in payment of rent on three occasions within a period of eighteen months; or" The bare reading of the above provision shows that a tenant was liable to eviction if he committed three defaults of two months each within a period of 18 months. This provision was subsequently amended and the provision in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 13 was introduced which lays down that a tenant can be evicted when he has not tendered the amount of rent due from him for 6 months'. Evidently this amendment was made with a view to further protect the rights so far as the eviction on the ground of default is concerned. 11. This controversy whether the period for six months' means a continuous period for 6 months or any 6 months with several breaks during any period of time, the tenant continues to occupy the rented premises has come up mainly because of the case of Hanuman Das (supra). This was a case in which while considering the question of defaults in payment of rent certain money-order coupons by which the rent amount was sent were considered by the Court. The question under consideration was whether the rent was tendered by money-order within time as per the provisions of the Act. This was a case in which while considering the question of defaults in payment of rent certain money-order coupons by which the rent amount was sent were considered by the Court. The question under consideration was whether the rent was tendered by money-order within time as per the provisions of the Act. The controversy that came up was whether the date on which the money-orders were remitted should be taken into consideration or the date on which the money-orders were received by the landlord should be taken into consideration. While considering this aspect of the matter the Court remarked that "even if for the sake of argument the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it appears that atleast the rent for the months of June, September, November and December of the year 1975 and March and July of the year 1976, were admittedly neither paid nor tendered within the meaning of being remitted before the 15th of the next succeeding month." It was further observed that "I am not expressing any opinion on the question as to whether the date of remitting the money-order or the date of refusal thereof, should be considered as the date of tender, but even if the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, then also on account of non-payment or tender of rent for the month of June, September, November and December of the year 1975 and March and July of the year 1976 within the specified time, it must be held that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for a period of six months within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(a) of the aforesaid Act at the time of institution of the suit." It is clear that the learned Judge Hon. Dwarka Prasad, J as he was then, did not express any opinion whether non-payment of rent for 6 months should be continuous or not. It was clearly stated by the learned Judge, he was considering the above aspect of the matter only for the sake of argument which was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant which even if accepted would not help the appellant to save him of the default. It was clearly stated by the learned Judge, he was considering the above aspect of the matter only for the sake of argument which was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant which even if accepted would not help the appellant to save him of the default. The learned Judge was considering whether the rent was paid or tendered within the meaning of being remitted before the 15th of the next succeeding month, keeping in view the provisions of Section 19-A (3)(a) and 19-A(4) of the Act. 12. In case of Bajranglal (supra) in head note (e) it is mentioned that ,it is not necessary under section 13(l)(a) that there should be default in payment of rent of continuous six months and this clause is fully attracted, if defaults in payment of rent of more months are committed." Two appeals were disposed of by this one judgment since similar point of law was involved. In appeal No. 151/86 plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for recovery of rent with allegations that tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. In previous suit he was given benefit under Section 13 (4)of the Act which was accordingly dismissed and he again defaulted in payment of rent for more than 6 months i e. from 1st Sept. 1978. The tenant denied these allegations and averred that he had not committed any default in payment of rent. On refusal of the money-orders of rent he deposited their amounts in Court. The trial court held that the tenant had committed defaults in payment of rent. This was confirmed by the learned District Judge in appeal as above. It has been stated by the learned Judge in para 7 that the main question for consideration in these appeals is whether the amounts of rent deposited in the Court were valid and could be taken into consideration under Section 19-A (4) of the Act. In para 27 and thereafter the learned Judge considered in details the amount sent by the tenants by money-orders which were thereafter deposited in Court on refusal of acceptance of the money-orders. In para 27 and thereafter the learned Judge considered in details the amount sent by the tenants by money-orders which were thereafter deposited in Court on refusal of acceptance of the money-orders. The learned Judge has given details to show that the amount of rent remitted by money-orders or deposited in Court do not help the tenant- appellants as the same were not remitted to the landlord and/or deposited in the Court within 15 days of the date of their accrual as required under Section 19-A of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the learned Judge was mainly considering whether the rent remitted by money-orders and subsequently deposited in Court on refusal by the landlord were validly deposited keeping in view the relevant provisions of Section 19-A of the Act and no opinion was expressed by the learned Judge that it is not necessary under Sect on 13(1)(a) that there should he default in payment of rent of continuous 6 months. The head mentioned above does not analyse the judgment properly. Case of Batlilboi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not touch this aspect of the matter as to whether non-payment of rent should he for continuous period of 6 months or not. in Ganpat Lal v. Kuldeep Singh 1989(1) RLW 1 rent from 1.5.82 to 31.10.82 was deposited on 29.10.82. The plea of the tenant that rent amount was paid personally to landlord who returned the same after few days was disbelieved & deposit of rent was not held to be in accordance with law. However after hearing both parties, it was held that to attract the default clause rent should he in arrears for a period of any 6 months and not for a continuous period of 6 months. In case of Khajoolal (supra), it was held that 'default' after the rent is due, should continue for 6 months. 13. Even before clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 was amended, an upper limit of 18 months was laid down during which if three defaults of two months each were committed the tenant was liable to eviction, if the interpretation advanced on behalf of plaintiff-respondent is accepted it will mean that even if 6 defaults of one month each are committed by a tenant during a period of say 10 years, he would be liable to eviction. Such an interpretation will positively affect adversely the rights of the tenant for whose benefit the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 were amended. This could not have been the intention of legislature is clear as it removed the provision regarding 3 defaults of two months each during the period of 18 months and substituted it by default for 6 months. This clearly indicate that the intention of the legislature was to further protect the rights of the tenant regarding eviction on the ground of default and it provided that instead of three defaults in period of 18 months the tenant now could be evicted only after he has committed default for a continuous period of 6 month. A reference may be made to case of Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand AIR 1972 SC 1548 , in which while considering the matter of interpretation of statutes, it was observed by the Apex Court in head note (B) that "although Courts are not concerned with the policy of the Legislature or with the result of giving effect to the language of the statute it is their duty to ascertain the meaning and intendment of the Legislature. In doing so, Courts will always presume that the impugned provision was designed to effectuate a particular object or to meet a particular requirement and not that it was intended to negative that which is sought to achieve." There is no doubt that the Act has been enacted for the benefit of the tenants and the intention of the legislature is clear from the preamble of the Act where-in it is stated that it is expedient to provide for control of evictions from letting of and rent for certain premises in Rajasthan." It is significant that in clause (a) of sub-section (1) Section 13 of the Act the word for 6 month.' has been used and not of 6 months. The word for, describes something which is continuous for a certain length of time. 14. However, in Ganpat La1 (supra) our answer to the question referred to therefore is that the u,e of words 'for 6 months' in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 means it should be for continuous period of 6 months. 15. The word for, describes something which is continuous for a certain length of time. 14. However, in Ganpat La1 (supra) our answer to the question referred to therefore is that the u,e of words 'for 6 months' in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 means it should be for continuous period of 6 months. 15. The case will now be sent back to the Single Bench, hearing the second appeals for decision in accordance with the law.Reference Answered. *******