Bharat Roadways And Anr. vs Shailendra Kumar Birla on 12 November, 1983
10. Coming to the month of Feb., 1976, the rental thereof was also sent by the defendants to the plaintiff by money order on 4-3-1976 by Exhibit A/21. This too was refused by the plaintiff. Had the remittance
of the rent for the month of Jan., 1976 been validly made under Sub-section (I) of Section 19 of the Act, the tenant would have been within his right to send the subsequent rent by money order. Since, however, the rent for the month of Jan., 1976 cannot be said to have been validly remitted under Section 19 of the Act, the remittance of rent for Feb., 1976 also by money order cannot be said to be a valid remit lance and consequently, the tenant will be deemed to be arrears in respect of rent for the months of Jan. and Feb., 1976. The view that I have taken above, as contended by Sri Shreenath Singb, learned counsel for the respondent, is supported by a decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 405 of 1960 decided on 26-9-1961 (Chali-tar. Prasad v. Badri Narain) notes whereof may be found printed in Summary of Cases at page 10 (2) of 1962 BLJR.