JUDGMENT 1. - The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal filed by defendant-appellant Deela Ram, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , are as under: The defendant-appellant has been a tenant under the respondent-plaintiff in respect of the shop in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. A suit for eviction of the appellant was filed by the plaintiff on 31-7-1974 on the ground of default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act). On receipt of the notice of the suit the appellant appeared in the Court and paid the entire amount due from him to the plaintiff on 4-9-1974, on which date the learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff having received the rent from the defendant did not want to proceed with the case. The second suit, out of which the, present appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiff on 20-8-1975 for eviction of the appellant under Clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the appellant who had been given, the benefit of sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Act, had again committed default in payment of rent for a period of more than six months. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that he was always ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff but since the plaintiff had not been accepting the same he had sent it by moneyorder which was also not accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant-appellant also denied having obtained any benefit under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act, in the earlier suit. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant had committed default in paying rent for the period for more than six months in the present case and that he having been given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act in the previous proceedings, was liable to be evicted from the shop in dispute, consequently, the decree for eviction was passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The appeal filed by the appellant having been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kishangarhbas, the appellant has approached this Court by filing this second appeal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. The only point raised before me and which requires consideration is as to whether it can be said that the defendant-appellant had been given the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act in the earlier proceedings. 4. The Act was passed by the Legislature with a view to grant protection to such tenants who are willing to pay the rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord, against their eviction by the unscrupulous landlords from the tenanted premises. A tenant is bound to pay the rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord who is equally bound to accept it when it becomes due and is offered by the tenant. Under the scheme of the Act, if the rent remains unpaid because the tenant did, not make any effort to pay the same to the landlord, the latter gets a ground for eviction of the former from the tenanted premises. If, however, the tenant tenders the rent to the landlord, who without any legal ground, refuses to accept the same and the rent remains unpaid, the ground of eviction is not available to the landlord. In such a case the court cannot pass a decree for eviction against the tenant as under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act the decree can be passed only if the court is satisfied that the tenant neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him to the landlord. If a landlord brings an action for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of nonpayment of rent the tenant can defeat the claim either by proving that he had in fact paid the rent to the landlord or by proving that he had offered the same but it remained unpaid because the landlord had not accepted it. If a landlord brings an action for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of nonpayment of rent the tenant can defeat the claim either by proving that he had in fact paid the rent to the landlord or by proving that he had offered the same but it remained unpaid because the landlord had not accepted it. Under the scheme of the Act when a suit for eviction is brought by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of the rent, before proceeding with the suit the court has to determine the rent payable by the tenant and the tenant has to pay the arrears of rent as also the rent becoming due during the pendency of the suit and if he fails to do so his defence against the eviction can be struck off by the court. If in such a suit the court comes to the conclusion that the tenant had committed default in paying the rent and the ground of eviction mentioned in Clause(a) of sub-section(1) of Section 13 of the Act has been made out but the tenant had deposited the determined rent and also the rent becoming due during the pendency of the suit the court cannot pass the decree for his eviction and has to dismiss the suit by giving him the benefit mentioned in sub-section(6) of Section 13 of the Act. This benefit can be enjoyed by the tenant only once during the term of his tenancy. A suit filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent may thus be dismissed on merits on two grounds : (1) that the tenant had succeeded in proving that he had paid the rent to the landlord or that he had tendered the rent to the landlord but the landlord had declined to accept it; (2) that the tenant had neither paid the rent nor tendered it to the landlord for the specified period but he having paid or deposited the rent determined by the court no decree can be passed against him in view of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act. Such a suit can also be dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution when a landlord fails to appear or does not want to prosecute it. Such a suit can also be dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution when a landlord fails to appear or does not want to prosecute it. It is only in the cases mentioned in the category (2) above that it can be said that the tenant has availed the benefit under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act. 5. It is not disputed that in the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground of non-payment of rent the defendant had appeared in court on the first date of hearing and the suit had been dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff having received the amount of rent from the defendant, did not want to proceed with the case. The said case, therefore, did not come in the category No. 2 mentioned above but was dismissed for non-prosecution by the plaintiff who though present did not want to proceed with it. In my view, therefore, it is not possible to hold that the suit was dismissed by giving the defendant-appellant the benefit provided under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act. There is thus no material to hold that the defendant-appellant had been given the abovesaid benefit in the earlier suit. 6. The finding of the learned lower Courts that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent for the period of more than six months mentioned in the present suit has not been challenged before me. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the present case the defendant-appellant had deposited the entire arrears of rent in compliance with the order passed by the learned trial Court. He having not earlier enjoyed the benefit of sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act is entitled to get the said benefit in the present suit and as such the decree for eviction cannot be passed against him. 7. Consequently, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments passed by the learned lower Courts and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant is entitled to the benefit under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Act. The appeal stands decided accordingly with no orders as to costs.Appeal accepted. *******