ORDER : 1. Since these two writ petitions arise out of one and same eviction proceedings between the parties, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the landlord and the tenant respectively, though on different grounds, against the common judgment dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short 'the Rent Appellate Tribunal') whereby the Rent Appellate Tribunal, while setting aside judgment dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short 'the Rent Tribunal") directing eviction of the tenant, has remanded the matter back to the Rent Tribunal to decide the question of payment of rent by cheque by adducing evidence by the parties. 3. Facts of the present case are that M/s. Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd.-landlord(hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') field an eviction application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001(for short 'the Act') before the Rent Tribunal on 18.07.2006 against Damodar Prasad Agarwal-tenant(hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') on the ground of default in payment of rent and recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 17,908/- from 01.04.2003 to 30.04.2006. The tenant contested the application for eviction by filing written statement. The tenant produced slip of the cheque deposited in the bank dated 29.06.2006 (Exhibit-1), copy of cheque, Exhibit A2 and A-3 and bank account statement, Exhibit A-4. Certificate issued by Manager, Johari Bazar Branch, Central Bank of India, Jaipur dated 14.05.2007(Exhibit-6) showing that the payment was deposited in his bank account on 03.07.2006 was also procured by the landlord along with rejoinder. The learned Rent Tribunal held that after service of notice on 31.05.2006, tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent as per the mandatory requirement under second proviso to Section 9 of the Act within 30 days, as the cheque, according to the certificate aforesaid was presented before the Bank on 03.07.2006. The Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 06.01.2011 allowed the application filed by the landlord directing eviction of the tenant. The tenant preferred appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal raising argument that cheque was presented before the Bank on 29.06.2006 and therefore, as per law, since realisation of payment of amount by cheque was thereafter made on 03.07.2006, the payment should be deemed to have been made on 29.06.2006. The tenant preferred appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal raising argument that cheque was presented before the Bank on 29.06.2006 and therefore, as per law, since realisation of payment of amount by cheque was thereafter made on 03.07.2006, the payment should be deemed to have been made on 29.06.2006. The Rent Appellate Tribunal held that while Exhibit-6 certifcate dated 14.05.2007 has been issued by the officer of the bank during the ordinary course of business, which has been solely relied upon by the Rent Tribunal, has to be considered as more reliable document, but the cheque slip, Exhibit A-1 also contained date of presentation of cheque on 29.06.2006. Thus, the dispute between the parties was that whether the cheque was presented before the Bank on 29.06.2006, as asserted by the tenant, or that it was deposited with the Bank on 03.07.2006, as asserted by the landlord. This fact could be effectively decided by the Rent Tribunal only by summoning relevant record through concerned officer/employee of the bank as to when the cheque was presented before the Bank for payment, but no such bank employee had been summoned by the Rent Tribunal to appear in witness box. In these circumstance, the Rent Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 20.01.2015 set aside the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Rent Tribunal in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby, both the landlord and the tenant have preferred writ petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Saransh Saini, learned counsel for the landlord as well as Mr. G.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant both have argued that there was no necessity for remand of the matter and the Rent Appellate Tribunal by itself should have decided the matter because both the landlord and the tenant are equally conversant about their case and evidence was also available on record. 5. Mr. Saransh Saini, learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that certificate dated 14.05.2007, Exhibit-6 issued by the Manager of the Bank categorically states that cheque was deposited with the bank on 03.07.2006. Since both landlord and tenant have their account in the same bank, the amount was credited in the account of the landlord on the same day. He, in support of his argument, has relied upon decision rendered by this Court in Rashid Khan Vs. Since both landlord and tenant have their account in the same bank, the amount was credited in the account of the landlord on the same day. He, in support of his argument, has relied upon decision rendered by this Court in Rashid Khan Vs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal (D.J.), Dholpur & Anr., 2005(1) DNJ (Raj.) 362 and argued that if the amount of rent is tendered by tenant beyond the notice period of 30 days, the ground of default was made out and decree of eviction of tenant should have been passed. Reliance has also been placed upon judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hukam Chand Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12230/2012 decided on 17.02.2014). 6. Mr. G.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant has submitted that cheque was deposited by the tenant in the bank on 29.06.2006 and receipt of such deposit has also been produced on record as Exhibit A-1. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income TAx, Bombay South, Bombay Vs. Messrs Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Ogale Wadi, AIR 1954 SC 429 , wherein it has been held that a cheque, unless dishonoured, is payment. The payment takes effect from the delivery of the cheque, but is defeated by the happening of the condition, i.e., non-payment at maturity. Learned counsel has also relied upon subsequent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in K. Saraswathy Alias K. Kalpana (Dead) by LRs. Vs. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar, (1998) 4 SCC 527 , wherein it was held that cheque must be deemed to be made on the date it is given, if encashed in due course. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the tenant on the decision of the Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another, AIR 2003 SC 4548 with regard to evidentiary value of the books of accounts and submitted that when the bank slip has been produced giving 29.06.2006 as the date of presentation of cheque, its veracity cannot be doubted. He lastly, relied upon the decision of this Court in Radha Kishan Vs. LRs. of Gulshan Behari, 2001(5) WLC (Raj.) 375 to argue that burden to prove default lies on the plaintiff-landlord. 7. He lastly, relied upon the decision of this Court in Radha Kishan Vs. LRs. of Gulshan Behari, 2001(5) WLC (Raj.) 375 to argue that burden to prove default lies on the plaintiff-landlord. 7. On careful consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal as also Rent Appellate Tribunal and language of the certificate issued by the Bank as also the date mentioned on the slip (Exhibit A-1), I find that the reasoning given by the Rent Appellate Tribunal is binding on the fact that evidence on the aspect that the cheque was presented before the Bank on 29.06.2006 has not been satisfactorily led by both the parties before the Rent Tribunal. This became necessary and rightly so because the Manager of the Bank in the certificate dated 14.05.2007 has mentioned that the cheque was deposited on 03.07.2006 and the amount was credited in the account of landlord on the same day. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that if cheque, in the ordinary course of business, is presented before the bank, should be deemed as regular mode of payment by negotiable instrument, but if such payment is shown to be made within time and if the negotiable instrument is dishonoured on presentation, the creditor would consider it as waste paper and it cannot be considered as payment. Conversely, if the payment of cheque is realised or credited into the account of payee, such payment takes effect from the date of delivery of cheque. In such circumstances, payment must be deemed to be made on the date cheque is presented, if encashed. The Supreme Court in K. Saraswathy Alias K. Kalpana (Dead) By Lrs. (supra) has examined this aspect of the matter on consideration of its earlier judgment in Commissioner of Income TAx, Bombay South, Bombay (supra) and held that payment by cheque realised subsequently on the cheque being honoured and encahsed relates back to the date of the receipt of the cheque, and in law the date of payment is the date of delivery of the cheque. Payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of present day life, whether commercial or private, and unless it is specifically mentioned that payment must be in cash, there is no reason why payment by cheque should not be taken to be due payment, if the cheque is subsequently encashed in the ordinary course. 8. Payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of present day life, whether commercial or private, and unless it is specifically mentioned that payment must be in cash, there is no reason why payment by cheque should not be taken to be due payment, if the cheque is subsequently encashed in the ordinary course. 8. The moot question in the present case is whether the cheque was presented by the tenant on 29.06.2006 or not. Although the tenant has produced pay slip dated 29.06.2006, Exhibit A-1 and also asserted the fact that 29.06.2006 was mentioned as the date on the cheque, but both of them are entries in his own favour and the certificate issued by the Manager of the Bank, Exhibit-6 in ordinary course of business would be considered comparatively more reliable. 9. Object of the remand, in the facts of the present case by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, is to arrive at truth by means of evidence of the bank officer/employee with reference to bank records because the entries with regard to presentation of cheque on 29.06.2006 or thereafter must have been made in the practice and procedure of the bank. Therefore, production of specific evidence thereabout would throw the light on this fact and help in arriving at the truth. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal. 10. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however, with direction to the Rent Tribunal to decide the eviction petition at the earliest, but not later than a period of six months from the date copy of this order is presented before it. 11. Stay applications also stand dismissed.