JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant plaintiff in a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No. 88/1996 "Om Prakash v. Jawari Mal" by which, the learned First Appellant Court had reversed and set aside the judgment and eviction decree dated 05.11.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jodhpur City, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 150/1992 "Jawari Mal v. Om Prakash " by which, the learned Trial Court had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-Jawari Mal on the ground of default in payment of rent and directed eviction of the defendant-tenant-Om Prakash in respect of suit property, situated at Kapda Bazar, Jodhpur. 2. 2. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.11.1996 is quoted herein below for ready reference:- rudh la[;k 1& izdj.k esa ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd i{kdkjku ds e/; igys Hkh fMQkYV ds vk/kkj ij okn pyk gS rFkk ml okn esa izfroknh dks izFke fMQkYVh ?kksf"kr djrs gq, jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 13 ( 6 ) dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k FkkA ml nkos dh fMdzh dh udy dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi izn'kZ 1 gS rFkk QSlys dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi izn'kZ 2 gSA Lo;a Mh0M0&1&vkseizdk'k us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd igys okys nkos esa mls izFke O;frdzeh ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA ns[kuk ;g gS fd izFke okn ds mijkUr D;k izfroknh us dHkh oknh dks fdjk;k /kkek ;k fu;ekuqlkj vnkyr esa jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 19&, dh rgr tek djok;k gSA bl laca/k esa oknh us okn&i= dh dye la[;k 3 esa ;g tkfgj fd;k gS fd mls vxLr 1993 rd dk fdjk;k izkIr gks x;k gS] tks izfroknh us /kkjk 19&, ds rgr eqdnek uEcj 41@91 esa tek djok;k FkkA oknh us fnukad 1-9-1991 ds i'pkr~ ls fdjk;k cdk;k gksuk crk;k gSA ih0M0&1 oknh tojhey us viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 1-9-1991 ds i'pkr dk fdjk;k izfroknh us ugha fn;kA Lo;a Mh0M0&1&vkseizdk'k us viuh lk{; esa dgk gS fd mlus fnukad 1-9-1991 ls ,d lky dk fdjk;k /kkjk 19&, ds rgr U;k;ky; esa tek djok fn;k gS tks fd izn'kZ ,&1 ds tek djok;k gSA oknh dh vksj ls bl laca/k esa izn'kZ 2-2 nLrkost izLrqr gq, gSA ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izfroknh us fnukad 1-9-1991 ls vxLr 1992 rd dk fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek djkus gsrq U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 19&, ds rgr izkFkZuk blh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk tks nhokuh fofo/k eqdnek la[;k 167@91 ds :i esa ntZ gqvk FkkA ;g izdj.k fnukad 15-10-1991 dks ntZ djus dk vkns'k fn;s x;s Fks rFkk tfj;s jlhn izn'kZ ,&1 ds gh izfroknh us fnukad 15-10-1991 dks gh 12 eghus ds fdjk;s ds :i;s 360@& tfj;s VsUMj tek djok fn;s FksA ckn esa fnukad 3-7-1992 dks ;g eqdnek izkFkhZ o mlds vf/koDrk ds xSj gkftj gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k FkkA ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk;xh ls lacaf/kr jlhnsa U;k;ky; esa ugha fn[kkbZ rFkk bl dkj.ko'k bl izdj.k dk uksfVl oknh dks ugha Hkstk x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izfroknh dh fu;r fdjk;k vnk ugha djus dh ugha Fkh rFkk mlus U;k;ky; esa fdjk;k tek djok fn;k Fkk vkSj mlds i'pkr~ fnukad 3-7-1992 dks izdj.k la[;k 167@91 esa vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk ;g rdZ bl gn rd rks Lohdkj djus ;ksX; gS fd izfroknh us U;k;ky; esa iSlk tek djok fn;k FkkA blhfy, mldh fu;r fdjk;k vnk djus dh FkhA ijUrq izfroknh o mlds vf/koDrk fnukad 3-7-1992 dks U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k mifLFkr ugha vk;s vkSj fnukad 1-5-1992 dks vknsf'kdk dh ikyuk djrs gq, mUgksaus jkf'k tek djkus dh jlhn ugha fn[kkbZ rks U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k bl ckr ds vfrfjDr dksbZ vU; fodYi ugha Fkk fd og izdj.k dks vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt dj nsA vr% ;g ugh ekuk tk ldrk gS fd fnukad 3-7-1992 dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; us fof/k vuqlkj ugha dh gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd mlds i'pkr dHkh Hkh izfroknh ;k mlds vf/koDrk us nhokuh fofo/k okn la[;k 167@91 dks jsLVksj djkus ds lacaf/kr dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dhA blds vfrfjDr Hkh Lo;a izfroknh us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izFke O;frdze dk Qk;nk ysus ds ckn mlus dHkh Hkh euhvkMZj ugha Hkstk vkSj u gh uksfVl gh fn;kA blls ;g Li"V gS fd jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 19&, ds rgr eqdnek la[;k 167@91 esa tks jkf'k izfroknh us tks jkf'k tek djokbZ gS og fof/kd izfdz;k dh ikyuk djrs gq, tek ugha djokbZ gSA bl vk/kkj ij bldks ,d osfyM fMiksftV dh Js.kh esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us dqynhi flag cuke x.kiryk o vU; ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1996 lqizhe dksVZ ist 729] esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k Fkk fd jktLFkku jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 19&, ds rgr U;k;ky; esa jkf'k tek djkus ls iwoZ fdjk;snkj dh /kkjk 19&, ds rgr lEiw.kZ izfdz;k dh ikyuk djuh iM+sxhA vr% mls igys jkf'k dk euhvkWMZj edku ekfyd dks Hkstuk gksxk edku ekfyd }kjk euh vkMZj ugha ysus ij og edku ekfyd dks izko/kku ds vuqlkj uksfVl Hkstsxk vkSj mlds ckn gh U;k;ky; esa jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 19&, ds rgr iSlk tek djok ldsxkA bl izdkj dh ikyuk djus ds mijkUr gh tek jkf'k dks /kkjk 19, ds rgr osfyM fMiksftV dh Js.kh esa ekuk tk;sxkA Li"V% izfroknh us bl izfdz;k dh ikyuk ugha dh gSA tks fd mldh Lo;a dh Lohd`fr gSA bl fLFkfr esa tek lqnk jkf'k dks Lohd`r fMiksftV jkf'k dh Js.kh esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA izfroknh us c;kuksa esa ;g tkfgj fd;k gS fd mlus fdjk;s dh jkf'k oknh dks /kkeh Hkh Fkh ysfdu bl laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g Li"V gS fd fnukad 1-9-1991 ds i'pkr~ dk fdjk;k izfroknh us fof/k vuqlkj oknh dks tek ugha djok;kA vr% bl vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa f}rh; fMQkYV dkfjr fd;k gSA vkns'k oknh dk okn fo:) izfroknh vkaf'kd :i ls fMdzh fd;k tkdj izfroknh dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr ifjlj dk [kkyh dCtk nks ekg ds Hkhrj&Hkhrj oknh dks lkSaisA oknh p<+s fdjk;s dh jkf'k 390@& :i;s Hkh izfroknh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA rkjh[k nk;jh okn ls rk izkIr djus dCtk oknh izfroknh dks ckn vnk djus U;k; 'kqYd 60@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls fookfnr ifjlj ds pwt ,.M vksD;wis'ku dk gjtkuk izfroknh ls izkIr gksxkA okn O;; oknh dks izfroknh ls fnyk;k tkrk gSA fctyh [kpZ ckcr~ oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'kkuqlkj ipkZ fMdzh dk;e fd;k tkosA Sd/- ( izeksn dqekj ekFkqj ) vkj0ts0,l0 " 3. Being aggrieved, the defendant-tenant-Om Prakash filed the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court of the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, namely, Civil Appeal Decree No. 88/1996 "Om Prakash v. Jawari Mal" which was allowed on 25.07.1997 and the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 05.11.1996 was reversed, while reversing the findings on the issue relating to the default in payment of rent. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.07.1997 is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- " 20- esjs er esa pwafd oknh us vxLr 1991 rd dk fdjk;k tks izfroknh us U;k;ky; esa tek djk;k Fkk izkIr dj fy;k gS vkSj mlds i'pkr izfroknh }kjk tfj;s Vs.Mj izn'kZ ,&1 o 2 flrEcj 1991 ls vxLr 1992 rd fdjk;k 15-10-1991 dks vfxze :i ls tek djk;k x;k gS blfy;s izfroknh }kjk fdjk;k le; ij tek djk fn;k x;k gSA tgka rd Vs.Mj izn'kZ ,&1 ds }kjk fdjk;k tek djokus ls iwoZ euh vkWMZj ugha Hkstus dk iz'u gS izfroknh ds fy;s ;g vko';d ugha gS fd og ckj&ckj fdjk;k tek djokus ls iwoZ edku ekfyd dks euhvkWMZj }kjk fdjk;k Hksts vkSj mldh bUdkjh izkIr djsA fQj Hkh vihykFkhZ izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 O;0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr fd;s x;s nLrkostksa dh izekf.kr izfr;ksa ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd izfroknh us oknh dks fnukad 13-11-1990 dks 60@& :i;s o 11-11-1990 dks 90@& :i;s dk fdjk;s dk euhvkWMZj Hkstk gS ftls oknh us izkIr djus ls euk dj fn;kA blfy;s izfroknh }kjk tfj;s Vs.Mj izn'kZ ,&1 ls fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek djkus ls iwoZ edku ekfyd oknh dks euh vkMZj ds }kjk fdjk;k dh jkf'k Hksth x;h Fkh ftls oknh us ysus ls euk dj fn;k FkkA esjs bl er dh iqf"V Lo:i flag 'ksjh flag cuke eksguyky vkSj dUgS;kyky cuke vkuUn dkSj ckbZ rFkk ekVhZu o gsjh'k ds fu.kZ; ls gksrh gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s U;k; n`"VkUr ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1996 lqizhe dksVZ ist 729 ds rF; izLrqr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSA mDr fu.kZ; esa fdjk;snkj }kjk U;k;ky; esa fdjk;k tek djkus ds iwoZ ekfyd dks ugha /kkek x;k Fkk vkSj u gh euhvkWMZj }kjk fdjk;k Hkstk x;k Fkk vkSj u gh mlds cpr [kkrs esa tek djokus ds fy, cSad [kkrk uEcj ds ckjs esa iwNk x;kA blfy;s bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd pwafd fdjk;snkj us U;k;ky; esa fdjk;k tek djkus ls iwoZ fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ugha viuk;h gS blfy;s mlds }kjk tek djk;k x;k fdjk;k osfyM fMiksftV dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk gSA ijUrq izLrqr izdj.k esa izfroknh us fdjk;k tek djokus ls iwoZ oknh dks euhvkMZj ls fdjk;k Hkstk x;k Fkk tks oknh us ysus ls euk dj fn;k gS vkSj mlds i'pkr vxLr 1991 rd fdjk;k izfroknh us U;k;ky; esa tek djok;k Fkk tks oknh us fcuk fdlh mtz ds izkIr dj fy;k gSA blfy, izfroknh }kjk fdjk;k le; ij vnk dj fn;k x;k gSA 21- tgka rd izn'kZ 22 ds }kjk izfroknh ds izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 19, ds fujLr gksus dk iz'u gS ;g izkFkZuk&i= vne gktjh o izkFkhZ&izfroknh }kjk jlhn ugha crkus ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA fd'ku flag cuke dsoyjkt vkfn] MCY;w0,y0,u0 1973 ( 1 ) ist 637] ds fu.kZ; esa ;g er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izfroknh nkf;Ro fdjk;k tek djokus o edku ekfyd dks lwpuk nsus ds fy;s jftLVjh [kpkZ o izkFkZuk&i= dh udy is'k djus dk gS vkxs dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; }kjk dh tkuh gksrh gS vkSj ,sls fofo/k izkFkZuk&i= dks vne gtkjh esa [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA Vs.Mj }kjk fdjk;k tek djok fn;k x;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk jlhn U;k;ky; esa nsuk vko';d gSA jlhn U;k;ky; ds jsdMZ esa Hkh gksrh gS ftls U;k;ky; ns[k ldrk gS vkSj dsoy ek= jlhn ugha crkus ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh dks nf.Mr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blfy;s izn'kZ 22 }kjk izfroknh dk izkFkZuk&i= fujLr fd;s tkus ek= ls ;g fl) ugha gksrk gS fd mlus fdjk;k le; ij tek ugha djk;k gSA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl lEcU/k esa tks fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS og mfpr ugha gSA fof/k ds izko/kkuksa dks le>us esa =qfV dh gS blfy;s bl okn fcUnw dk fu.kZ; cuk;s j[kus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj mDr foospu ds vuqlkj ;g fl) ugha gksrk gS fd izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk;xh esa f}rh; pwd dh gSA blfy;s ;g okn fcUnw vihykFkhZ&izfroknh ds i{k esa o oknh0 jsLiksMsUV ds fo:) fu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ&izfroknh }kjk izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS o fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh nksuksa 5-11-1996 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS o okn jsLiksMsUV dk okn ckcr~ olwyh p<+k fdjk;k og fctyh [kpkZ o csn[kyh fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA Sd/- ( rQTtqy gqlSu lEek ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la0 rhu tks/kiqj " 4. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the Trial Court's judgment dated 05.11.1996 by the learned First Appellate Court by its judgment dated 25.07.1997, the plaintiff-Jawarimal filed the present second appeal in this Court on 12.09.1994; and, while admitting the present second appeal on 24.09.1997, a coordinate Bench of this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the deposit of rent in Court by tenant-defendant without satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 19 A (3) (c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 can be regarded as a valid deposit? 2. Whether deposit of rent made by defendant in Court in Misc. Case No. 167/91 under Section 19A of the Act which was later on dismissed in default without issuing any notice to the plaintiff, on account of non-production of receipt and non-appearance of the defendant or his consent could have been considered as a deposit in terms of Section 19A (3) (c) of the Act?" 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length and upon perusal of the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that the present second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff-landlord-Jawari Mal, since deceased now represented by his legal representatives against reversal of the findings on the issue of default in payment of rent deserves to be allowed and the substantial questions of law deserve to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the eviction decree dated 05.11.1996 granted in the present case in favour of the landlord-plaintiff by the learned Trial Court deserves to be restored, while setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and decree dated 25.07.1997, which was granted on the ground of default in making the payment of rent by the defendant-tenant, has rightly been granted as per the settled legal position in this regard. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram, 2003 DNJ SC 180 also held as under:- "41. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram, 2003 DNJ SC 180 also held as under:- "41. Thus, on analysis of the aforesaid two decisions we find that wherever the special Act provides for extension of time or condonation of default, the Court possesses the power therefor, but where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the Court does not have the power to do so. 42. In that view of the matter it must be held that in absence of such provisions in the present Act the court did not have the power to either extend the period to deposit the rent or to condone the default in depositing the rent. 43. Coming to the second question, we are of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable where there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant under section 13(4) of the Act. 44. It is true that Rajasthan Act does not expressly exclude the application of Limitation Act. But Section 5 in its terms is not applicable to wherever there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant. 45. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads under:- "5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of O. XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 46. On perusal of the said Section it is evident that the question of application of Section 5 would arise where any appeal or any application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the court hat he had sufficient cause for not making the appeal or application within such period. On perusal of the said Section it is evident that the question of application of Section 5 would arise where any appeal or any application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the court hat he had sufficient cause for not making the appeal or application within such period. Section 13(4) provides that in a suit for eviction of the ground set forth in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) the tenant shall on the first date of hearing or on or before such date, the Court may on the application fixed in this behalf or within such time the tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord in Court as determined under sub-section (3) from the date of such determination or within such further time not exceeding three months as may be extended by the Court. Thus, sub-section(4) itself provides for limitation of a specified period within which the deposit has to be made, which cannot be exceeding three months as extended by this Court. 47. The matter may be examined from another angle. The deposit by the tenant within 15 days is not an application within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the deposit does not require any application, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 cannot be extended where the default takes place in complying with an order under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act." 7. In the case of Bulaki Dass S/o Asha Ram Purohit v. Ram Swaroop S/o late Dwarka Dass Rathi, 2009 (2) WLC 298, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shiv Dutt Jadia v. Ganga Devi reported in (2002) 3 SCC 189 , this Court granted eviction decree upon the second default committed by the tenant in payment of monthly rent during the pendency of the appeal. This Court in the aforesaid case of Bulaki Dass (supra) has held as under:- "18. Having heard the learned counsel at length and having gone through the record of the case and the judgments of two Courts below and the judgments cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below cannot be said to have erred in any manner in passing the eviction decree against the appellant-tenant on the ground of second default. The deposit in the Court of learned Munsif Magistrate without any procedure known to law at all under Section 19A of the Act or otherwise is of no consequence and cannot enure to the benefit of the defendant-tenant. The said deposit, if any, is no deposit and has been rightly treated as not a valid tender of rent by the defendant-tenant by the Courts below. Admittedly, the first deposit itself for the month of June, 1980 was made by the tenant on 17.7.1980 after the suit proceedings terminated on 11.7.1980 with dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate court. Therefore, on 14.7.1980, no proceedings were pending in the Court and, therefore, deposit of rent for the month of June, 1980 in the learned trial Court was not at all a valid tender. Similarly deposits for the month of July, 1980 and August, 1980 were also without any consequence. The present and second suit came to be filed by the plaintiff on 4.2.1981. Though it was required of the learned trial Court to determine the arrears of rent under Section 13(3) of the Act, since it was a suit on the ground of second default, merely because that is not done, the defendant-tenant cannot take any advantage of that situation. After institution of the suit on 4.2.1981, any deposit under Section 19A of the Act was also not permissible as held by this Court in Swaran Devi v. Kailash Chandra (supra). The provisions of Section 19A of the Act are meant to be resorted to if the landlord illegally refused to accept the rent from the tenant after following the procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both, as has been laid in the case of Bajrang Lal v. Ramdeo (supra). Nothing of this sort under Clause (b) was followed by the appellant for any of the default months upto January, 1981. The tenant in order to maintain his tenancy right is allowed to deposit the rent in the Court instead of payment of the same to the landlord only after following the mandatory procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both. Nothing of this sort under Clause (b) was followed by the appellant for any of the default months upto January, 1981. The tenant in order to maintain his tenancy right is allowed to deposit the rent in the Court instead of payment of the same to the landlord only after following the mandatory procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the rent at least for the month of June, 1980 to August, 1980 was tendered to the landlord at any point of time, therefore, deposit for these three months cannot be said to be a valid deposit as per provisions of Section 19A of the Act. Similarly, for the month of September, 1980 to November, 1980, the money orders sent by the defendant which were of course refused by the plaintiff landlord for these three months also, there was no deposit of the same by the tenant in the Court under Section 19A of the Act. Thus, for six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980, the second default stood committed by the tenant. The deposit under Section 19A of the Act which came to be made by the defendant-tenant on 10.2.181 for 5 months (September, 1980 to January, 1981) was not in accordance with law, after institution of present suit on 4.2.1981 and as procedure both under Clause (a) and (b) was not followed by the tenant and, therefore, the said deposit also does not wash away the second default which already stood committed by the defendant tenant. Admittedly, the law does not permit any leniency and waiver in the case of second default and eviction decree under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act is bound to be passed on commitment of second default in payment of rent. As already discussed above, the second default for the period of six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980 stood committed by the defendant-tenant on 15th December, 1980 and the eviction decree was bound to be passed and was, therefore, rightly passed by the Courts below. 19. As already discussed above, the second default for the period of six months from June, 1980 to November, 1980 stood committed by the defendant-tenant on 15th December, 1980 and the eviction decree was bound to be passed and was, therefore, rightly passed by the Courts below. 19. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant do not help the case of the appellant in any manner, and they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, whereas the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent fully support the case of the plaintiff-respondent, particularly decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), decision of this Court in the case of Bajrang Lal (supra) and the decision of this Court in the case of Swaran Devi (supra) also support the case of the plaintiff-respondent. 20. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and the same deserves to be dismissed and the substantial question of law quoted above deserves to be answered against the defendant-tenant and the decree of eviction deserves to be upheld by this Court. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed with costs throughout." 8. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeal filed on behalf of appellant-plaintiff-Jawari Mal, since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives stands allowed and the substantial questions of law, framed and quoted herein above, are answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellants-landlord and against the defendant-respondent tenant because he has not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 19A of the Act and continued to make default in payment of rent during pendency of the appeals. 9. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent-defendant-tenant om Prakash shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondents-plaintiffs on or before 30.06.2017 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 9. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent-defendant-tenant om Prakash shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondents-plaintiffs on or before 30.06.2017 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 1,500/- per month (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred per month only) commencing from the month of January, 2016 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the appellants-plaintiffs-landlord-LR's of Jawari Mal also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of One & Half Year for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The respondent-defendant-tenant om Prakash shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit and pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear interest @ 9% per annum. The respondent-defendant-tenant-Om Prakash shall also not sub-let, assign or part with the possession of the suit shop or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void. The respondent-defendant-tenant-Om Prakash shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the appellants-plaintiffs-landlord LR's of Jawari Mal within a period of One & Half Year from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court.Appeal allowed. *******