JUDGMENT
V.S. Kokje, J.
1. The short point involved in this revision application is as to whether the Munsiff, Sirohi could have refused to accept the deposit Under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) during the pendency of an appeal against the dismissal of the suit of the land lord for eviction.
2. The appellant filed an application on 17.8.88 before the Munsiff, Sirohi Under Section 19A and 19 CC of the Act claiming therein that the appellant is a tenant @ Rs. 55 as rent for a month. According to him the rent was refused to be accepted by the land lord/non-applicant. The Munsiff issued a notice to the non-applicant who took a stand that a suit for ejectment between the parties was decided and appeal was pending against the decision and so long as the appeal was not disposed of, application Under Section 19 A of the Act could not be entertained. The Munsiff overruled the objection and accepted the deposit.
3. Against the aforesaid decision of the Munsiff, a Misc. appeal was filed in the court of Civil Judge, Sirohi who accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsiff holding that appeal was continuation of suit and therefore no deposit which was made during the pendency of the suit Under Section 19A could be accepted. Against this appellate order, the present revision application has been filed.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel and having perused the record, I am of the view that this revision application deserves to be allowed. No provision of law has been pointed out to me which provides that deposit under Section 19A could be refused on the ground of pendency of appeal between the parties. Under the scheme of the Act, it appears that Section 19 A is provided as a safety valve for a tenant who finds it difficult to make the landlord accept or receive the rent. It is only a safeguard against creation of an artificial default by the land lord. It is for this reason, the authority to which the payment is made Under Section 19A has to accept it without any detailed enquiry into the background of such payment. The authority has only to see that condition of Section 19A of the Act are prima facie fulfilled. If he is prima facie satisfied that rent was lendered and refused or a money order was sent and came back with an endoresement that it was refused or the land lord is not found on the address, he has to accept the deposit. Whether such payment will save the tenant from the rigours of other provisions of law is not to be seen or decided by the authority accepting payments Under Section 19A of the Act. Whether the payment would amount to compliance with the provisions of Sub-Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act or not is to be seen by the appellate court before whom the matter is pending. The Munsiff was not concerned as to whether deposit before him Under Section 19A would amount to compliance with the requirements of deposit of rent prescribed by Section 13 of the Act. The Munsiff was only concerned with the provisions of Section 19A and not with Section 13 of the Act.
5. For the aforesaid reasons this revision petition is allowed, the order of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the Munsiff is restored. The question of compliance with the provisions of Section 13 shall be open for being decided in the appeal. Whether the conditions of deposit Under Section 19A Sub-section (3) were fulfilled or not can also be seen by the appellate court because the only thing which is to be seen by the Court is as to whether the postal coupon with an endorsement of refusal or not found is there on the file or not.
6. With these directions and obsevations this revision application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.