Honble PRASAD, J.–The present appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur dated 21.9.1994 in Civil Appeal No.74/92. The learned Additional District Judge was seized of the appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1990 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.611/87, where- by the suit of the landlord was decreed against the tenant appellants. The decree has been passed against the appellants on the ground of second default. Earlier the tenant was declared as first defaulter in another proceedings. After those proceedings a second suit was filed by the landlord out of which the present appeal arises. (2). The case of the landlord in the second suit was that the tenant has commi- tted a second default after the tenant was declared as first defaulter. The tenant states that he tendered the rent to the landlord many a times but he did not accept. He then asked for the bank account number of the landlord but he did not give the bank account number. The tenant appellants, therefore, deposited six months rent vide Challan No.36 on 4.5.1995 in Civil Misc.Case No.27/85 under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and subsequently 12 months rent was deposited by the tenant vide tender No.2230 dated 30.10.1985 in Civil Misc. Case No.89/85 under Section 19A of the Act. Both the courts below have held that the deposit made under Section 19A of the Act was not a valid deposit. Under Section 19A(3)(c) of the Act before a valid deposit can be made in the court the tenant is required to first send a money order and on refusal thereof, ask for the bank account number from the landlord. If the bank account number is also not given then he can make a deposit and if any such deposit is made then such deposit is considered as a proper payment. Since in the instant case no money order was sent and only bank account number was asked for, therefore, the tenant cannot be deemed to have paid or tendered the rent under sub-section (4) of Section 19A of the Act. (3). Since in the instant case no money order was sent and only bank account number was asked for, therefore, the tenant cannot be deemed to have paid or tendered the rent under sub-section (4) of Section 19A of the Act. (3). Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the language of Section 19A of the Act requires that the tenant may apart from personal payment, remit or deposit the rent by any one of the modes prescribed in sub-section (3). Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (3) provide for sending rent by postal money order and asking for the bank account number respectively. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 19A of the Act if the tenant had paid or tendered the amount of any rent due from him by any of the methods of clause (3) then that is a valid payment. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the tenant has deposited the rent on failure of the landlord to specify the bank account number. He has made a valid deposit. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the certain observations of this Court in Smt. Manak Bai & ors. vs. Kalyan Bux (1), which reads as under:- ``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. (4). In view of these observations, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants have deposited the rent in the Court and, therefore, he should be deemed to have deposited the rent and his deposit should be considered as to be a valid deposit and should not be termed to be an illegal deposit and the tenant should not be held to be a second defaulter. (5). Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the conclusions arrived at in the judgment of Smt. Manak Bai (supra) and submitted that in conclusion No.4 it has been held that 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 be postal money order under C1.(a), he cannot adopt the method of depositing the rent due with the Court under clause (c). That being the position, the deposit made by the tenant without sending the money order was an invalid deposit and, therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent urges that the appeal should be dismissed. (6). Learned counsel for the appellants when confronted with the conclusion No.4 arrived at in the judgment of Smt. Manak Bai (supra), he submitted that there is a difference in the conclusions and discussion in the judgment and, therefore, the matter should be referred to a larger bench. (7). Mr. Nagori intervened with the permission of the court and contended in favour of the appellants that the Honble Supreme Court vide its judgment in the case of Sheo Narain vs. Sher Singh reported in (2), has held that where the tenant makes the deposit of the arrears of rent and interest informing the landlord at the first hearing then the requirement of the law has been sufficiently complied with. I am afraid that this case has no application to the given facts of the case because the Honble Supreme Court has held that ``in the instant case we have already poi- nted out that the appellant had fulfilled all the conditions of the proviso and had deposited the rent arrears, costs and interest on the first date of hearing and he, therefore, complied with all the requirements of the proviso and was,therefore, entitled to the protection given by the statute. The proviso which was under consideration in that case is not to the effect as in clause(c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19A of the Act which is under consideration before me and, therefore, will be of no guidance. The other case relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Nagori is the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Babu Ram vs. Narayan Dass reported in (3). This case relates to the interpretation of the unamended provisions of Section 19A of the Act, therefore, of no guidance. (8). Another point urged by Mr. Nagori is that the deposit was accepted by court. The court before accepting the deposit should have seen whether it had jurisdiction to accept the deposit or not. This case relates to the interpretation of the unamended provisions of Section 19A of the Act, therefore, of no guidance. (8). Another point urged by Mr. Nagori is that the deposit was accepted by court. The court before accepting the deposit should have seen whether it had jurisdiction to accept the deposit or not. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court delivered in Bhanwar Lal vs. Smt. Kamla Devi (4), and particularly the following observations made in paras 17 & 18 and has contended that no one should be pen- alised for the fault of the court. ``One of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does not injury to any of the suitors and when the expression `the act of the Court, is used, it does not mean merely the act of the primary Court, or of any intermediate or Court of Appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole from the lowest Court which entertains jurisdiction over the matter upto the highest Court which finally disposes of the case. ``There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounded duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: ``Actus Curiae neminm gravabit. (9). The argument of Mr. Nagori is the deposit the court had committed an error. The argument is falacious. Under the Scheme of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act no duty is cast upon the court before accepting the deposit to assess the validity of the deposit. The validity of a deposit is considered by the Court when a lis is brought in between the landlord and tenant to adju- dicate the dispute. Even the withdrawal of such deposits has no reflection on the rights of the parties under Section 19C. (10). Another case relied upon by Mr. Nagori is Kuldeep Singh vs. Ganpat Lal and another (5), wherein while the Supreme Court, considering the case relating to Section 19A in paragraph 4 sub- sections (3) and (4) of Section 19A has been dis- cussed. (10). Another case relied upon by Mr. Nagori is Kuldeep Singh vs. Ganpat Lal and another (5), wherein while the Supreme Court, considering the case relating to Section 19A in paragraph 4 sub- sections (3) and (4) of Section 19A has been dis- cussed. It has been noted by the Honble Supreme Court as under: ``Under sub-section (3), apart from personal payment of rent to the landlord, three other modes have been prescribed, (i) remittance by postal money order at the ordinary address of the land, (ii) deposit in the bank account of the landlord and (iii) deposit in Court in cases where the money order has been received back under the postal endorsement of refusal or unfound or where the landlord does not specify the bank account number or where there is a bona fide doubt that the person or persons to whom the rent is payable. Under sub-section (4), a legal fiction is created and the tenant is deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him and is not to be treated in default of payment of rent if he has paid, remitted or deposited the amount of rent by any of three methods specified in sub-section (3). (11). Learned counsel has emphasised that the word `and has been used as `or in clause (c) of sub-section (3) where the two formalities of sending the postal money order and asking for the bank account number are in conjection and the word `and should be read as `or I am afraid that this inference sought to be derived by the learned counsel Mr. Nagori is not permissible as the Honble Supreme Court was not considering the import of word `and and was generally discussing the pro- visions of Section 19A of th Act. In the case in hand before the Honble Supreme Court no deposit whatsoever was made in accordance with clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19A. Therefore, the provisions of Section 19A were generally discussed and not in the given circumstances of a case where the deposit was made only after asking for the bank account number and not after sending the mo- ney order. In these circumstances, this case has also no application to the facts of the case in hand. (12). Another case relied upon by Mr. Nagori is Kanhaiya Lal vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai reported in (6). In these circumstances, this case has also no application to the facts of the case in hand. (12). Another case relied upon by Mr. Nagori is Kanhaiya Lal vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar Bai reported in (6). In this case, this Court has held that once the money order is sent and the same is returned back with the endorsement of refusal then deposit in court is not necessary. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition because the law says so. But before the deposit is made the deposit has to be made in terms of the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19A of the Act and as has been held by this Court in Naresh Kumar & others vs. Pyar Chand (7), that before a tenant can make a deposit he has to exhaust both the methods as pro- vided in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19A and, therefore, the case relied upon by Mr. Nagori has no application in the present case since the Division Bench of this Court in Manak Bais case (supra) has categorically held that unless both the conditions specified in clause (c) are satisfied a deposit in the bank cannot be made. In the instant case the appellant had not sent a money order to the landlord and in the absence of sending the money order he asked for the bank account number of the landlord and then he deposited the amount. The said deposit cannot be considered as a deposit under Section 19A of the Act and, therefore, it cannot be deemed that he has deposited/tendered the amount as required by law and since he has not tendered or deposited the amount as required by law, the courts below have committed no illegality in holding him to be defaulter and once he is a second defaulter he has to face the consequences. (13). In the result, there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No orders as to costs.