JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction interalia on the ground that the defendant-appellant committed default in the payment of rent. The trial Court determined the arrears of rent and the appellant deposited the same.The suit was decided on 2.4.1986. Later on, the plaintiff-respondent filed second suit on 1.2.1987, with the allegations that the defendant committed second default in the payment of rent for the period from 1.3.1986 to 30.6.1987. The learned Munsiff Magistrate, Ajmer (East), Ajmer vide his judgment and decree dated 24.1.1992, decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the defendant- appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer, vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1994. This decree has been challenged in this Second Appeal by the defendant. 2. The only submission of counsel for the appellant is that the defendant was depositing rent in previous suit under Section 19A of the Rajasthan (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). After the decision of that suit the defendant-appellant continued to deposit the rent under Section 19A of the Act, in the said Court and as such he did not commit any default. 3. Counsel for the plaintiff respondent submits that even for the sake of arguments, it be taken that the defendant- appellant deposited rent under Section 19A the deposit was not valid. The defendant appellant neither offered the rent to the plaintiff nor sent money-orders, nor asked the plaintiff to supply his bank-account number. Under such circumstances, the deposit was not in accordance with clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19A and as such the appellant cannot get protection of Sub-Section 4 of Section 19A. In support of his submission Mr. Goyal, placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal and another, reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 729 . 4. I agree with the submissions of Mr. Goyal. Both the lower courts held that the defendant appellant committed second default in the payment of rent. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 5. Counsel for the appellant prays that some reasonable time be given to the appellants for vacating the disputed property. 6. Goyal. Both the lower courts held that the defendant appellant committed second default in the payment of rent. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 5. Counsel for the appellant prays that some reasonable time be given to the appellants for vacating the disputed property. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that execution of the decree shall remain stayed till 31.3.1997, provided the appellant gives an undertaking in writing in the trial court after supplying a copy of the same to the plaintiff or his counsel, mentioning therein that : (1) he himself will hand-over vacant possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff respondent on or before 31.3.1997, without execution of the decree; (2) that he will not transfer the disputed property in any way to any other person; (3) that he will pay/deposit all the arrears of rent, if any, to the plaintiff respondent within two months and will also pay/deposit rent upto 31.3.1997. 7. In case the defendant appellant fails to give undertaking within one month from today, or commits breach of any conditions of the undertaking, the plaintiff- respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree forthwith.Second Appeal Dismissed. *******