Judgment The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction was decreed by the court below on the ground of default in payment of rent for the months of October-November, 1981 and also for the months of May-June, 1983 from the date of the filing of the suit in the year 1985. According to the finding recorded by the court below that there was default in payment of rent for the months of October-November, 1981 as no rent was tendered. Further the finding was that the rent for the months of May-June, 1983 onwards was remitted by money order by - the father of the appellant which was refused. It was held that this did not amount to proper tender of the rent as the tenant was the appellant and not the father who remitted the rent. Mr. Maitin contended that the father sent the rent through money order on behalf of the appellant and the same should be accepted as valid tender. Mr. Atul Chandra, on the other hand, refuted this argument by saying that nobody else other than the tenant can remit the rent. He is not right. Rent can be remitted by the defendant and also by a person on behalf of the tenant. The finding, therefore that there was default in payment of rent for the months of May-June, 1983 on wards is erroneous in law. It is accordingly set aside. Now remains the default for the months of October-November 1981. The tenancy commenced on the 16th of every month and came to an end on the 15th of the month next following. The rent due, according to the finding was for the period beginning from 16th October to 15th November, 1981. There was thus default in payment one month rent only. This is not sufficient for a decree for eviction. I, accordingly set aside the decree for eviction passed against the appellant but he will have to pay due rent for the months of October-November, 1981 and also rent for the period beginning from May-June, 1983 to up to December, 1991 at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month. Non payment of pendent lite rent will get an interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. Mr. Matin very fairly conceded that the rent of Rs. 45/- is too low. He very fairly said that he is prepared to raise rent to Rs. 45/- per month. Non payment of pendent lite rent will get an interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum. Mr. Matin very fairly conceded that the rent of Rs. 45/- is too low. He very fairly said that he is prepared to raise rent to Rs. 450/- per month with effect from 1st. January, 1992. This increase in rent is quite voluntarily which becomes operative with effect from 1.1.92. The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.