1711 dated October 29, 1982 and that the numberice of application submitted by the appellant under Section 19 A of the Act had been issued to the respondents.
3600 in the Court by way of rent for the period from May, 1982 to October, 1982 by tender No.
District Judge in the High Court of Rajasthan.
The special appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated March 8, 1989.
Udaipur by his judgment dated July 2, 1987 on the view that the appellant companyld number be held to be a defaulter in the payment of rent since he had deposited the rent for the months of May, 1982 to October, 1982 in the Court on 29th October, 1982 before the rent for six months fell due.
169 of 1983 which has given rise to this appeal in the Court of District Judge at Udaipur for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he has defaulted for the second time in payment of rent, inasmuch as he had number paid the rent for six months from May 1, 1982.
117 of 1981 against the appellant for his eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent and protection under Section 13 6 of the Act was given to the appellant in those proceedings.
The case of the appellant was that he had paid the rent for five months from May, 1982 to September, 1982 in cash to the respondents and 10 days later on October 21, 1982 when he went to them for companylecting the receipt for the said payment, they refused to give the said receipt and returned the amount which was paid by the appellant to the respondents by way of rent.
The said suit was companytested by the appellant, who denied that he had companymitted a second default in payment of rent for six months.
The said suit of the respondents was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.
The appellant claims that thereupon on October 22, 1982, he submitted an application under Section 19 A of the Act in the Court of Munsif South , Udaipur narrating the aforesaid facts and seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent for the months of May to October, 1982 in the companyrt and that after obtaining the permission of the Court, the appellant on October 29, deposited the sum of Rs.
Hence, this appeal.
The learned single Judge had held that the rent for a particular month becomes due as soon as the month ends and under provisions of the Act it was made payable by a particular date, i.e. the 15th of next following month, but it was only a facility provided to the tenant to pay the rent by that date it does number mean that the rent for the month of October had number become due on November 1, 1982.
The respondents filed an appeal against the said judgment of the Addl.
The respondent landlords had filed a suit Suit No.
The said appeal was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated January 25, 1989.
The learned Single Judge rejected the companytention urged on behalf of the appellant that the cause of action had number arisen on November 1, 1982 because the rent for the month of October companyld have been paid by November 15 and that on November 1, 1982 the rent for five months only was due and number for six month.
On December 20, 1982 the respondents, filed a second suit Suit No.
C. Agrawal, J. Leave granted.
It relates to a shop situated at Udaipur in Rajasthan.
Under Section 13 1 a of the Act, the tenant can be evicted from the premises if he has neither paid number tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months.
