R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a tenant filed an application under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('act' for short) in HRC No. 243 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, bangalore, seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court. He alleged that the landlord had refused to receive the rents and issue receipts; and that he had sent the accrued rent by banker's cheque through registered post and the landlord refused to receive it. The Court below has rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 19 as he had not tendered the rent by postal money order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2 ) PETITIONER contends that when the landlord refuses a valid legal tender of the rent, the Court ought to have permitted him to deposit the rent under Section 19. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and Others v Parashram and Others and Dr. Brahmanand v Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Another, to contend that sending of rent by cheque/banker's cheque/demand draft is a valid tender. ( 3 ) IN Parashram's case, supra, the Supreme Court, while considering whether a tenant had defaulted in paying rent held that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a cheque sent by tenant to the landlord towards payment of arrears of rent is a valid tender of rent. But this case does not relate to default by a tenant. 3. 1 In Brahmanand's case, supra, the landlord had sued for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, under the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The said Act provided for eviction inter alia on the ground that if the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand. The said Act enabled the tenant to deposit rent when a landlord refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by the tenant and further provided that any such deposit shall be deemed to be due payment of rent by the tenant. The said Act enabled the tenant to deposit rent when a landlord refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by the tenant and further provided that any such deposit shall be deemed to be due payment of rent by the tenant. The Supreme Court interpreting the words 'lawfully paid' observed as follows:"but payment need not be by physical tender, person to person. It can be by money order, or through messenger or by sending a notice to the landlord asking him to nominate a Bank into which the rents may be regularly paid to the credit of the landlord. If the landlord refuses under these circumstances, then the Court deposit will be the remedy". ( 4 ) SECTION 19 of the Act provides that where the address of the landlord or his authorised agent is not known to the tenant or where the landlord refuses to accept the rent remitted by postal money order under section 47, the tenant may deposit the rent lawfully payable to the landlord in respect of the premises. Section 47 of the Act provides that if the landlord fails to issue a receipt in regard to the rent tendered or evades receipt of rent, the tenant may remit to the landlord the amount within fifteen days from the date on which it falls due by postal money order deducting the money order commission. ( 5 ) WHILE tendering of rent by a banker's cheque may be a valid tender, while considering whether there is a default by the tenant in paying the rent, such tender will not be sufficient for making an order under section 19 of the Act. Either of the two requirements mentioned in section 19 should be fulfilled before an application under Section 19 can be allowed. The first is where the tenant pleads that he does not know the address of the landlord or his authorised agent. Second is where the landlord has refused to accept the rent remitted by the tenant by postal money order. When the statute requires that a thing should be done in a particular manner for grant of a specified relief, the thing should be done in that manner. Second is where the landlord has refused to accept the rent remitted by the tenant by postal money order. When the statute requires that a thing should be done in a particular manner for grant of a specified relief, the thing should be done in that manner. The decision of the Supreme Court in tha case of brahmanand, will not apply as the wording of Section 7-C (l) of the UP act is different from the wording of Section 19 of the Karnataka Act. The UP Act enabled deposit of rent by tenant where the landlord refused to accept any rent lawfully paid. There is no such provision in the Karnataka act. Section 19 of the Karnataka Act, specifies only two circumstances in which rent can be permitted to be deposited and no other. ( 6 ) THE case of the petitioner does not fulfil either of the two conditions. Hence even if petitioner had tendered the rent by banker's cheque that will not entitle him to file a petition under Section 19 of the Act. In the view I have taken, it is not necessary to examine whether the petitioner could have allowed the rents to accumulate to such an extent before making the tender by banker's cheque. It is open to the petitioner even now to tender the rent by postal money order and if the landlord refuses to accept the same, then file a petition under Section 19 of the act, if the landlord has not already sued for eviction. ( 7 ) NO error in the order is made out by the petitioner. Petition is therefore rejected. --- *** --- .