JUDGMENT : 1. - In this civil second appeal the learned Single Judge has referred the following questions to the larger Bench:- (1) Whether the law laid down in Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal (AIR 1975 Rajasthan 196 = 1974 RLW P-251) is no longer a good law in view of the amendments introduced in Section 19-A of the Act by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976 ? (2) Whether in view of the sub-section (4) of Section 19 A of the Act, a tenant can (sic) not escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 13 of the Act, unless he fulfils requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section l)-A of the Act? 2. The above two questions arose for consideration in the following facts and circumstances. 3. The second appeal was filed by the plaintiff in a suit for eviction based on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises ( Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendant respondent's case is that after acceptance of rent for the period from 1st April, 1977 to 31st of July 1977 a money order for Rs. 37.20 on account of rent for the period from 1st August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 was sent by him on 23rd December, 1977 and the same was refused by the plaintiff. Another money order for Rs. 52.06 in respect of rent for the period 1st August, 1917 to 28th February, 1978 was sent on 28th March, 1978 which was also not accepted and a third money order for Rs. 74.37 in respect the rent for the period 1st August. 1977 to 31st May, 1978 was sent on 26-6-78 which was also refused. 4. On behalf of the plaintiff appellant it was urged before the learned Single Judge that after the refusal by the appellant of the money orders, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have deposited the rent in Court under Section 19-A (3) of the Act and in view of the failure on the part of the respondent to deposit the rent for the period from 1st August. 1977 onwards in the court, he should be treated to be a defaulter under section 13 (1) (a) of the Act. 1977 onwards in the court, he should be treated to be a defaulter under section 13 (1) (a) of the Act. Reliance was placed by Shri R. S. Kejriwal learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant on a decision of this Court in Jagdish Kumar v. Roopchand (1970-RLW-315) and Sobhraj v. Bhanwarlal (AIR 1975 Rajasthan 196=1974 RLW 251) . 5. Shri D. D. Patodia, on the other band submitted that since the respondent sent the rent by money order and the same was refused by the appellant, the respondent was not obliged to send the rent again by money order or deposit the same in the court under section 19-A of the Act and he placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Babu Ram v. Narain Das (1959 RLW-81) , Shiv Shanker v. Sanwal Singh (1963 RLW-105) , and Kanhaiyalal v. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai, (1988 (1) RLR-208) . The learned Judge observed that the cases Babu Ram v. Narain Das and Shiv Shanker v. Sanwal Singh were decided at a time when Section 19-A was not on the statute book. Section 19-A was introduced in the Act for the first time by Rajasthan Act 12 of 1965 and it was observed that in Jagdish Kumar v. Roop Chand it has been held that Section 19-A was introduced "to nullify the effect of the decision of this Court holding that if the tenant sends rent by money order to the land-lord and the latter refuses to accept it, then the tenant need not send the rent again to him either by money order or tender it to him personally". It was also observed that in Sobh Raj v. Bhanwarlal (supra) it has been laid down that when the money order has been refused a tenant having tendered the rent to the land lord must himself deposit the same in the court to escape the liability of being ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent for six months. Contrary view is taken by S.N. Bhargava, J. in Kanhaiya Lal v. Anand Kanwar Bai (supra) and it was held that in such a situation, it is not obligatory on the pact of the tenant to deposit the rent under section 19-A (3) of the Act in order to avoid eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Contrary view is taken by S.N. Bhargava, J. in Kanhaiya Lal v. Anand Kanwar Bai (supra) and it was held that in such a situation, it is not obligatory on the pact of the tenant to deposit the rent under section 19-A (3) of the Act in order to avoid eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. The learned Single Judge expressed his disagreement with the view taken in the case of Kanhaiyalal v. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai and in his view Section 13 was also amended by Act No. 14 of 1976 and Section 19-A was also amended. Noticing conflicting opinion, the above two questions have been referred for being answered by a larger Bench. 6. We have heard Shri R.S. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant and Mr. D. D. Patodia, learned counsel for the defendant respondent. 7. In order to properly appreciate and adjudicate the questions referred to a larger Bench, it is essential to read the relevant provisions. Section 13 of the Act as amended by Act No. 14 of 1976 reads as under : Section 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 therefor 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 ; or (2) The Court may presume that premises let for use as a residence were or are sublet by the tenant in whole or in part to another person, if it is satisfied that such person, not being a servant of the tenant or a member of the family of such servant, was or has been residing in the premises or any part thereof for a period exceeding one month otherwise than in commensality with the tenant. (3) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub- section, the court shall, on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination: Provided that while determining the amount under this sub-section, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit. (4) The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord month by month the monthly rent subsequent to the period upto which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time, not exceeding fifteen 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). (5) If tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified therein the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. (5) If tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) on the date or within the time specified therein the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit. (6) 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-section (1) shall be passed by the court against him: Provided that a tenant shall not be entitled to any relief under this sub- section, if having obtained such benefit or benefits under section 13-A in respect of any such accommodation if he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for six months. (7) If any suit referred to in sub-section (3), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the court shall decide the dispute finally at the time of decision of the suit and may, at that time, pass such orders regarding costs or interest, as having regard to the circumstances of the case. it deems fit. (8) In case at the time of decision of the suit- (a) the court finds that the amount of rent provisionally determined by it under sub-section (3) and deposited in court or paid to the landlord under sub-section (4) is less than the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the tenant, the court shall pass a decree for the balance amount against the tenant; (b) the court finds that the amount determined and deposited or paid as aforesaid in excess of the amount of rent finally decided as payable by the tenant, the court shall, in the event of passing a decree for eviction against the tenant on ground other than that set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1), also pass a decree in favour of the tenant for such excess amount deposited or paid by him and in the event of dismissing the suit for eviction it shall direct in the decree that such excess amount will be adjusted by the landlord against future rent payable by the tenant. (9) Where any decree or order for the eviction of tenant is made on the ground specified is sub-section (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of two months from the date of the decree or order. 8. The relevant portions of Section 19-A as substituted by the aforesaid amending Act No. 14 of 1976 are as under : Section 19-A. Payment, remittance and deposit of Rent by tenant. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. (2) Every tenant who makes a payment on account of rent shall be entitled to obtain a receipt for the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorised agent. (3)A tenant may, apart from personal payment of rent to the landlord, remit or deposit rent by any of the following methods: (a) he may remit the amount of any rent due from him by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord; or (b) he may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify, within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by the latter, a bank and account number into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord. If the landlord specifies a bank and account number, the tenant shall deposit the rent in such bank and account number and shall continue to deposit in it any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises : Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city or town in which the premises is situated: Provided further it shall be open to the landlord to specify from time to time by a written notice to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a bank different from the one already specified by him under this clause; (c) Where he has remitted the rent by postal money order under clause (a) and the money order is received back by him under a postal endorsement of refusal or un found and 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 rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the court within fifteen days of the expiry of the period of ten days referred to in clause (b) and in the case of such bona fide doubt as aforesaid, within fifteen days of the time referred to in sub-sec. (1) and further continue to deposit with the court any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises. (4) For the purpose of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of section 13, a tenant shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him, if he has paid, remitted or deposited the amount of rent by any of the methods specified in sub-section (3). (5)The deposit with the court shall be accompanied by an application by the tenant containing the following particulars namely:- (a) The accommodation for which the rent is deposited with a description sufficient for identifying the premises; (b) the period for which the rent is deposited; (c) the name and address of the landlord or the person or persons claiming to be entitled to such rent; (d) the reasons and circumstances for which the application for depositing the rent is made (6) The application referred to in sub-sec. (5) shall bear a court fee stamp of Rs. 2/- and shall be accompanied by requisite postal stamps for sending the notice and a copy of application under sub-sec. (5) shall bear a court fee stamp of Rs. 2/- and shall be accompanied by requisite postal stamps for sending the notice and a copy of application under sub-sec. (7). (7) On such deposit of the rent being made, the court shall send notice of the deposit by registered post acknowledgement due and also send a copy or copies of the application to the landlord or persons claiming to be entitled to the rent with an endorsement of the date of deposit; and a copy of such notice shall be affixed on the notice board of the court. (8) If an application is made for the withdrawal of any deposit of rent, court shall, if satisfied that the applicant is the person entitled to receive the rent deposited, order the amount of the rent to be paid to him and such payment of rent shall be a full discharge of the court from all liability to pay rent to the landlord: Provided that no order for payment of any deposit of rent shall be made by the court under this sub-section without giving all persons named by the tenant in his application under sub-sec. (5) as claiming to be entitled to payment of such rent, an opportunity of being heard and such order shall be without prejudice to the rights of such persons to receive such rent being decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Explanation:- For purpose of this section and sections 19B and 19 C, 'the Court" with respect to any local area means any civil court which may be specially authorised by the State Government by notification in this behalf, or where no civil court is so authorised. (i) the court of the Munsiff, and (ii) the court of the Civil Judge, where there is no court of Munsiff having jurisdiction over the area. Section 19-B reads as under : Section 19-B. Time for deposit and effect of deposit within time-No rent deposited with the Court under section 19-A shall be considered to have been validity deposited under that section unless the deposit is made within the time specified in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of the said section. 9. Section 19-B reads as under : Section 19-B. Time for deposit and effect of deposit within time-No rent deposited with the Court under section 19-A shall be considered to have been validity deposited under that section unless the deposit is made within the time specified in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of the said section. 9. It may be stated that the Act was amended in 1965 and amendments were made in Section 13 and Section 19-A was introduced and thereafter further amendments were made by Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 and Act No. 14 of 1976. In Section 13(l) the present clause (a) was substituted in 1965 and a provision for deposit of rent by tenant was added in Section 19-A which provided that a tenant may deposit rent with the court if the landlord does not accept any rents tendered by the tenant or where there is doubt as to the person or persons to whom rent is payable. 10. No eviction of tenant is possible unless the court is satisfied about the existence of the ground of eviction set out in Section 13 (1). It is enjoined upon the Court not to pass any decree or make any order in favour of landlord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract unless the Court is satisfied regarding the existence of any of the grounds set out in Section 13 (1). In the present case, eviction of the tenant is sought on the ground provided in Section 13(1) (a). The ground of eviction is that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. The plaintiff has to establish that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. If it is proved that the tenant has not defaulted in payment or tendering the amount of rent due from him for six months, no decree for eviction can be passed against the tenant. 11. The plaintiff has to establish that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. If it is proved that the tenant has not defaulted in payment or tendering the amount of rent due from him for six months, no decree for eviction can be passed against the tenant. 11. The words tender means "an offer of money, or the like, in discharge of a debt or liability, especially an offer which thus fulfils the terms of the law and of the liability, an offer of anything for acceptance, an offer made in writing by one party to another to execute, at an inclusive price or uniform rate, an order for the supply or purchase of goods, or for the execution of work, money of other things that may be legally tendered or offered in payment". The above meanings have been given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. 11-1975 Edition. 12. In Black's Law Dictionary V Edition the meaning of the word tender is given as - "an offer of money. The act by which one produces and offers to a person holding a claim or demand against him the amount of money which he considered and admits to be due, in satisfaction of such claim or demand, without any stipulation of condition." It is further mentioned that the actual proffer of money, as distinguished from mere proposal or proposition to proffer it. Hence mere written proposal to pay money, without offer of cash, is not -tender". 13. In Words and Phrases Legally Defined Second Edition Vol. V the meaning of the word tender is given as 'Tender is an unqualified offer, accompanied by actual production. of the exact amount due in 'legal tender", i. e. current coin of the realm or Bank of England notes. Informal tender may also be made by an offer without actual production of legal tender. if the person to whom it is made dispenses with actual production by intimating that the tender, even it formally made, will not be accepted". 14. If it is proved that the amount of rent due from the tenant is offered in cash and the same is refused by the landlord, in that situation the ground for eviction would not be made out and the plaintiff landlord would not be entitled to obtain decree. 14. If it is proved that the amount of rent due from the tenant is offered in cash and the same is refused by the landlord, in that situation the ground for eviction would not be made out and the plaintiff landlord would not be entitled to obtain decree. It is only when, it is proved that the tenant has not tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months a decree for eviction can be passed by the Court against the tenant. 15. It is to be seen as to whether a decree for eviction can be passed, if the tenant fails to deposit the amount of rent in court under section 19 A (3) which he had already tendered to the landlord. The question is as to whether the Section 19-A lays down an obligation on the part of the tenant to deposit the amount of rent due from him, if the same has been refused by the landlord when offered to him and if the tenant fails to deposit. whether section 19-A provides that it would be taken that the tenant has not tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months and he is liable to be evicted. The question is whether a tenant can escape from the liability of eviction only by depositing rent in Court under section 19-A despite the fact that the landlord has refused acceptance of rent when the same was tendered to him whether personally or by postal money order. 16. Section 19-A begins with the marginal note "Payment, remittance and deposit of Rent by tenant". Sub-section (1) enjoins upon the tenant to pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. This is subject to the provisions of Section 19-A. When such payment is made by a tenant, a right is given to the tenant to obtain a receipt for the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorised agent, under sub-section (2) of Section 19-A. Sub-section (3) of Section iv-A embodies three clauses (a), (b) and (c). Apart from the personal payment of rent to the landlord under section 19-A (3), a tenant may remit or deposit rent by any one of the methods provided in Clause (a), (b) and (c). Apart from the personal payment of rent to the landlord under section 19-A (3), a tenant may remit or deposit rent by any one of the methods provided in Clause (a), (b) and (c). It is open to him to remit the amount of any rent due from him by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord, under clause (a) or under clause (b) he may obtain the name of the bank and account number by notice in writing and if the landlord specified a bank and account number, the tenant is required to deposit the rent in such bank and account number and shall continue to deposit the amount of rent which may subsequently become due. Under clause (c) there are two situations in which the tenant may deposit the amount of rent in court. One situation is that when the rent has been remitted by postal money order under clause (a) and the same is received back with an endorsement of refusal or unfound and when the landlord does not specify the bank and his account number. When both these conditions exist, the tenant may deposit the rent in court and the second situation is when there is a bona fide doubt as to the person to whom rent is payable. The tenant may deposit the amount with the court in the second situation as well. Within what time the amount is to be deposited. is further provided in Clause (c). Sub-section (4) of Section 19-A introduces a deeming provision for the purpose of Clause (a) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 13. If the tenant either pays rent or remits rent under clause (a) of Section 19-A (3) or deposits rent under clause (b) or (c) of Section 19-A (3), he will be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him. It may be stated that in the beginning of the main provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A and in clause (a) the word 'may' is used. The word may' is also used in clause (b) for the purpose of obtaining the name of the bank and the account number. It may be stated that in the beginning of the main provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 19-A and in clause (a) the word 'may' is used. The word may' is also used in clause (b) for the purpose of obtaining the name of the bank and the account number. But if the landlord specifics the bank and the account number, then it is enjoined upon the tenant to deposit the amount of rent in such bank and account number and here the expression used is 'shall' but again in clause (c) it is left to the tenant to deposit the rent with the court within 15 days on expiry of the ten days referred to in clause (b) or within 15 days referred to in sub-section (1). If the tenant wants not to incur liability of eviction on the ground contained in Section 13 (1) (a), he is required to make payment of rent or tender the amount of rent. Payment may be personal or by deposit in Bank Account of the landlord as envisaged in Clause (b) of Section 19-A (3) or with the court as contemplated in Cl. (c) of Section 19-A (3) and tender may be personal or by postal money order. The intention of the legislature does not appear to be that the tenant will be treated to be a defaulter even when he has offered rent impersonally or by money order. Sub-section (4) of Section 19.A clearly provides a fiction that if the tenant pays, remits or deposits the amount of rent by any of the methods specified in sub-section (3), he will be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent for the purpose of clause (a) of Section 13. If Section 13 (I) (a) is read along with Section 19-A, it would appear that there is no such provision in these sections that in case the amount is not deposited in court, the tenant will be deemed to be a defaulter. The tenant will not be deemed to be a defaulter, if he remits the amount of rent due from him by postal money order under clause (a). The expression used there is `remit'. In sub-sec. (4) of Section 19-A, the expression used is remitted'. The tenant will not be deemed to be a defaulter, if he remits the amount of rent due from him by postal money order under clause (a). The expression used there is `remit'. In sub-sec. (4) of Section 19-A, the expression used is remitted'. When the tenant remits or the amount of rent is remitted, then, in that situation under sub-section (4) it will be deemed that there has been 'tender' of the amount of rent due from the tenant. 17. For the purpose of Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) the word 'remit' means to send money to a person or place as in payment of a demand, account, draft, to send money as in payment promptly by cheque or money order as provided in Webester's Third New International Dictionary, 1976 Edition. 18. In the marginal note the expression used is remittance and it means a sum of money sent to another person or place, or transmittal of money as to a distant place. 19. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary IV the Edition 'remit' means a person whose duty is to "remit" money or documents, discharge that duty as soon as he has, in the ordinary course and manner of business, sent it to them off. 20. In Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition 'remit' means to send or transmit; as to remit money. 'Remittance' means money sent by one person to another, either in specie, bill of exchange, check, or otherwise. 21. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary II Edition 1975 the meaning of 'remit' is to send or transmit money or articles of value to a person or place. 'Remittance' means a sum of money sent from one place or person to another. 22. It is pertinent to note that in sub-section (3) as well as in sub-section (4) the word "any" has been used. In sub-section (3) it is provided that a tenant may remit or deposit the rent by any of the methods provided in clause (a), (b) and (c). Similarly under sub-section (4), if the tenant adopts any one of the three methods, he will be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him. In sub-section (3) it is provided that a tenant may remit or deposit the rent by any of the methods provided in clause (a), (b) and (c). Similarly under sub-section (4), if the tenant adopts any one of the three methods, he will be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him. On analysing the provision of Section 19-A sub-section (3) and (4) it would be clear that it is open to the tenant to adopt anyone of the methods and if he adopts the method of remitting the money by postal money order, then he will be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him for the purpose of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13. 23. Let us now consider the case-law. In Sobh Raj v. Bhanwarlal , Lodha, J. took into consideration some of the observations made in the Full Bench decision in Martin & Harris Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chand (1974 RLW 115) and reference was also made to the decision in Jagdish Kumar v. Roopchand (supra). It was observed in that case that section 19-A was introduced in the Act on 9th June, 1965 and it was to nullify the effect of the rule in Babu Ram v. Narain Das . Section 19-A was introduced and it was held that if the Landlord refuses to accept rent either personally or by money order then it is the duty of the tenant to deposit the rent in the court. In the Full Bench case, the question, which was referred was, whether under section 19-A, it is necessary for the tenant every time before making a deposit of rent in court to tender the same to the landlord and to have his refusal or once the landlords has refused the tender of rent, then for every subsequent deposit in the court the tenant will not be required to first tender the rent to the landlord and have it refused. The question was whether it was necessary for the tenant to tender every time the amount of rent before making a deposit of rent in court. It was not the question before the Full Bench as to whether the depositing of rent is a must on the part of the tenant after refusal by the landlord. The question was whether it was necessary for the tenant to tender every time the amount of rent before making a deposit of rent in court. It was not the question before the Full Bench as to whether the depositing of rent is a must on the part of the tenant after refusal by the landlord. Hon able Lodha, J, observed that the point involved in the Full Bench case was a bit different. In Sobh Raj v. Bhanwarlal (supra) Lodha, J. considered the question as to whether it is obligatory on the part of the tenant to make deposit of rent as provided under section 19-A after the landlord has refused to accept the rent once. The observations of the Full Bench which have been extracted in Sobh Raj v. Bhanwarlal (supra) are as under : "These provisions (Sec. 19A) as we read them, provide a machinery to immunise a tenant from being labelled as a defaulter if despite the tenant's tender the landlord refused to accept rent. The deposit of rent is not only notified to the landlord personally but is also published by its being fixed on the notice board. The landlord may, if he chooses, withdraw such rent. The payment to the Court by fiction of the law would mean payment to the landlord so far as the tenant's liability for rent is concerned". It is further observed as under : "From the above observations made by the Full Bench it appears that their Lordship's view was that in order to obtain immunity from being ejected as a defaulter despite the refusal by the landlord to accept the rent, the tenant must make the deposit under section 19 A. Under sub-sec. (5) of Section 19(A) a notice is sent to the landlord to receive the rent so deposited by the tenant and this has been held by the Full Bench as "again an offer to the landlord, by tenant through the court to receive the rent". The Full Bench goes on to observe that "thus each deposit in Court and a notice thereof to the landlord would imply a tender enabling the landlord to ask the tenant to pay the rent directly. The landlord is thus given repeated options to ask for the rent directly, if he so wishes". The Full Bench goes on to observe that "thus each deposit in Court and a notice thereof to the landlord would imply a tender enabling the landlord to ask the tenant to pay the rent directly. The landlord is thus given repeated options to ask for the rent directly, if he so wishes". It further appears to me that section 19-A was introduced with a view to avoid dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding tender and non-acceptance of rent by the landlord. Consequently, there is no escape from the conclusion that if the tenant wants to escape from the conclusion that if the tenant wants to escape from the liability of being ejected on the ground of rent having not been paid or tendered for six months he must make the deposit as provided under section 19-A even though the tender of rent by the tenant to the landlord has been refused once. If the does not do so and rests contend by merely tendering the rent once which has been refused by the landlord he shall be deemed to have committed default in payment of report due, and if such arrears mount for six months or more it would certainly become a ground for the landlord to seek ejectment on the at basis. In the present case the tenant admittedly did not make deposit of rent as required by section 19-A and has thereby committed default in respect of the amount of rent due from him for more than six months and is therefore liable to be ejected." 24. It appears that the learned Judge proceeded to hold that the tenant must make the deposit as provided in Section 19-A even though the tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord has been refused once on the basis of the observations made by the Full Bench. To our mind the observations in the Full Bench Case do not go so far as has been considered by the learned Judge. If the tenant deposits the amount of rent he immunises himself and escapes the liability from eviction. From such an observation, it cannot be said that the tenant is under an obligation to make deposit despite refusal of tender of rent by the landlord. If the tenant deposits the amount of rent he immunises himself and escapes the liability from eviction. From such an observation, it cannot be said that the tenant is under an obligation to make deposit despite refusal of tender of rent by the landlord. The points of distinction pointed out by Bhargava, J. in Kanhaiyalal's case may not be so material, but what is material is the language employed in sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 19-A. The whole of Section 14-A has been substituted by the amending Act of 1976 and its amended provisions are to be construed and understood. As already stated above option has been given to the tenant to adopt 'any' of the methods and if he has adopted anyone of the methods, then he will be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him. If the ground itself is not made out, it is inconceivable that provision of Section 19(A) (3) can be taken to mean that unless deposit is made in the court or in bank account, the tenant will be deemed to be a defaulter. To our mind Section 19-A is an enabling provision. It enables the tenant to adopt any of the methods and if he adopts any one of the methods, then he will be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount. 25. In Kanhailal v. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai , Bhargava, J. proceeded to consider the facts of that case and observed that since tenant had sent the rent by money order for various months between June, 1978 to December, 1978, he cannot be said to have committed default or that he has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months specially when he has tendered the rent for various months from June, 1978 vide Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-6 and therefore no decree of eviction could be passed against him under section 13 (1) (a). Mr. Kejriwal referred to the observations made in the above case that "Even though this is a beneficial legislation in favour of the tenant but the legislature has also safeguarded the interest of the landlord that the landlord should receive the rent regularly if the tenant wants to continue occupying the premises on rent. Mr. Kejriwal referred to the observations made in the above case that "Even though this is a beneficial legislation in favour of the tenant but the legislature has also safeguarded the interest of the landlord that the landlord should receive the rent regularly if the tenant wants to continue occupying the premises on rent. Therefore, a tenant is not only to be ready and liability the rent, but the landlord should also receive the rent". From this observation it cannot he said that the tenant can escape liability only when amount of rent due is deposited in the court under clause (c) of Section 19-A (3) The interest of the landlord is safeguarded even by methods provided in clause (a) and (b) and in clause (a) the tenant is simply required to offer rent by remitting the same through postal money order. In this manner, as well the interest of the landlord is safeguarded. If the landlord refuses to accept the postal money order, it is his look out. On refusal of landlord of the postal money order, in our considered opinion, there is no further obligation on the part of the tenant to deposit the rent in court, in order to escape the liability of eviction. It is pertinent to consider that eviction can be sought only on the grounds specified in Section 13 (1) and in the light of the ground contained in Clause (a) of Section 13 (1), no obligation is found in any provision for depositing the amount even when rent due is remitted by money order. If Section 19-A (3) and t4) are construed in that sense of obligatory duty to deposit, it will take away the right of the tenant to defend himself on the ground that he has tendered the rent due. The landlord may fail to prove that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months if the tenant establishes tender of the amount of rent. As already stated the two provisions contained in Section 13 as well as in Section 19-A have to be read together. The landlord may fail to prove that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months if the tenant establishes tender of the amount of rent. As already stated the two provisions contained in Section 13 as well as in Section 19-A have to be read together. There is no provision that on depositing the rent in court, it would be deemed that the tenant has not tendered the amount of rent, when on facts it can be established that the amount of rent was actually offered to the landlord through postal money order and was refused by him. 26. Reference is also made to Sri Narain Prasad v. Smt. Shoba Singh and ors., . Under Section 16 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 one of the modes for paying the rent to landlord on his refusal is a tender or remittance by postal money order. It was held that it does not matter whether the landlord accepts or refuses the same. Refusal by landlord would be deemed to be a valid payment to the landlord and above the tenant from his obligation to pay the rent to the landlord. In M/s Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand, ( AIR 1989 S.C. 630 ) there was a provision for service of notice through post office by the landlord under a registered cover to the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears. The word 'serves' occurring in proviso (1) of Section 11 of Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1956 was interpreted to mean as sent by post' correctly and properly addressed to the tenant and it was held that if the landlord has sent notice through registered post and is returned undelivered the landlord has complied with the statutory requirement if he has sent notice correctly addressed by post to the tenant. 27. On reading the provisions of Section 13 (1) (a) and Section 19-A (3) & (4) and on analysing them the position that emerges is : 1. The tenant may make payment of rent due personally. If he does so, he will save himself from eviction. Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) will not be made out. 27. On reading the provisions of Section 13 (1) (a) and Section 19-A (3) & (4) and on analysing them the position that emerges is : 1. The tenant may make payment of rent due personally. If he does so, he will save himself from eviction. Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) will not be made out. Sub-section 4 of Section 19A still lays down that a tenant shall be deemed to have paid rent, if he has 'paid' the amount of rent by any of the methods specified in sub-section (3). When payment is made question of fiction of payment should not arise. Question of fiction of payment or tender should arise only in cases of remittance under clause (a) or deposit under clauses (b)&(c). The word 'paid' occurring after the words 'if he has' and before the words "remitted or deposited" is not of much consequence. 2. In order to save himself from eviction under section 13 (1) (a), the tenant may remit the amount of rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord. If he does so, sub-section (4) Section 19-A would be attracted and it will be deemed that the tenant has tendered the amount of rent due irrespective of the fact that the money order returns back to the tenant on account of refusal by the landlord or returned with an endorsement 'not found'. Remitting the amount of rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord is one of methods. That is a method under clause (a) and the tenant is not required to adopt more than one method. 3. Instead of remitting the amount of rent due, the tenant may ask for the bank account number from the landlord and if the landlord specifies the same, the tenant must deposit the amount of rent due in that account and if he so deposits, sub-section (4) of Section 19-A would come into play and the tenant will be deemed to have paid the amount of rent due. 4. Where on remission of rent due by postal money order, under clause (a), the same is received back under a postal endorsement 'refusal' or 'not found' and the landlord does not specify Bank Account Number under Cl. (4) (Sic (b)), the tenant may deposit the amount of rent due with the court. 4. Where on remission of rent due by postal money order, under clause (a), the same is received back under a postal endorsement 'refusal' or 'not found' and the landlord does not specify Bank Account Number under Cl. (4) (Sic (b)), the tenant may deposit the amount of rent due with the court. If he so deposits, it will be deemed that the tenant has paid or tendered the amount. But it is not obligatory for the tenant to adopt this method if he has resorted to the method under Cl. (a). If there is refusal of money order, there is tender and the tenant would be saved from Cl. (a) of Section 13 (1). However, if he so likes, or if he so chooses, he may adopt the method under Cl. (c). Remittance under Clause (a) does not necessarily mean acceptance of the money order by the landlord. There would be sufficient compliance of the method under clause (a) if the tenant sends the amount of rent due by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord. If the tenant adopts the method under clause (b) and the landlord does not specify the Bank Account Number and the tenant does not remit the rent due by postal money order under Cl. (a), he cannot adopt the method of depositing the rent due with the Court under Clause (c). 5. Where there is bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom rent is payable, the tenant must deposit rent with the court if he wants to avail the benefit of fiction under sub-section (4) of Section 19-A If he so deposits, then only it will be deemed that he has paid the rent due. 6. In case, deposit of rent due with the court is made obligatory for attracting sub-section (4) when there is refusal of money order by the tenant (sic landlord) or when there is an endorsement of 'not found' on it, an incongruity or anomaly would arise as only one method is to be adopted by the tenant. If the tenant adopts the method under clause (a) he is not required to adopt the method under Cl. (c) although he is free to adopt the method provided under Cl. (c) as well if the requisite condition exists. If the tenant adopts the method under clause (a) he is not required to adopt the method under Cl. (c) although he is free to adopt the method provided under Cl. (c) as well if the requisite condition exists. In that case fiction under sub-section (4) would arise on account of remitting of rent due by money order as well as by deposit of rent in court. 28. We, therefore, agree with the view taken in the case of Kanhaiyalal v. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai and the decision in Sobh Rajasthan v. Bhanwarlal in our considered opinion is no longer a good law viewed in the light of the substituted provisions of Section 19-A by Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1976. First question is answered accordingly. 29. So far as the second question is concerned, that question has also been dealt with while dealing with question no. 1. When the tenant acts in any of the methods provided in clause (a), the & (c) of sub-section (3) of sce. 19-A, he ill be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent and as such ground contained in Clause (a) of Section 13 (1) (a) would not be made out as tenant would be deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him and in this manner he can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default of payment of rent. Even if sub-section (4) would not have been there, as regards remittance of rent by money order it could not be held that clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 13 is satisfied and such a finding could not be arrived, at that the tenant has neither paid nor remitted the amount of rent due from him for six months. 30. Two decisions have been referred to on the question as to what constitutes valid deposit under section 19-A (3) (c). They are Bajrang Lal v. Ramdeo (1988 (1) RLR 360= 1988 (1) WLN 289) and Ganpatlal v. Kuldeep Singh, (1989 (1) RLW 1) . 30. Two decisions have been referred to on the question as to what constitutes valid deposit under section 19-A (3) (c). They are Bajrang Lal v. Ramdeo (1988 (1) RLR 360= 1988 (1) WLN 289) and Ganpatlal v. Kuldeep Singh, (1989 (1) RLW 1) . What is laid down in these decisions is that clause (c) of Section 119-A (3) would be attracted only when there is a refusal on the part of the landlord to accept the rent remitted by postal money order or when he is not found and the landlord has not specified bank and account number despite notice in writing requiring the same. In case both these conditions are not fulfilled and amount is deposited in court, then such a deposit of rent would not be a valid one. The tenant can deposit the amount of rent in court only when there is a refusal on the part of the landlord to accept money order of (sic or) when the landlord is not found and when the landlord has not -specified bank and his account number. If only one condition is satisfied i.e. refusal of money order by the landlord, the tenant has no right to deposit the amount of rent in court and such deposit would be invalid. These are not the authorities on the question as to whether the deposit of rent is a must and if there is a failure to deposit what would be the effect of it on the ground of section 13(1)(a. 31. Thus our answer of question no. 2 is that if the tenant acts in any of the methods provided in sub-section (3) of Section 19-A, he can escape the liability from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under section 13, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 19-A of the Act. 32. We have answered the two questions as above, and now the case will go to the learned Single Judge for hearing and disposal according to law.Reference answered. *******