Disjunctive rent payment modes under tenancy law require proved notice service before court deposit becomes valid.

Section 19-A(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 provides alternative modes for payment or tender of rent, and the word "or" makes those methods disjunctive rather than cumulative. A tenant may resort to court deposit if one of the prescribed methods is attempted and fails because of the landlord's conduct. The provision also requires a written notice under clause (b), and service of that notice must be proved. On the stated facts, the tenant did not establish service of the notice, as the alleged notice was not sent by registered post and the certificate of posting was insufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, a tenant can validly deposit rent in court without first remitting it by postal money order, and whether the tenant had proved service of notice requiring the landlord to specify a bank and account number.

Analysis: The opening part of Section 19-A(3) provides three alternative modes of payment or tender of rent, and the word "or" between the methods is disjunctive. Clause (c) must be read harmoniously with clauses (a) and (b), so that the tenant may deposit rent in court if he has adopted one of the two alternative methods and that attempt fails for the landlord's fault. The provision does not require cumulative compliance with both clauses (a) and (b). However, clause (b) contemplates a notice in writing to the landlord, and service of that notice is implicit. The alleged notice was not sent by registered post, the landlord denied receipt, the tenant adduced no reliable evidence to prove service, and the certificate of posting was not regarded as sufficient on the facts. In these circumstances, the tenant failed to establish that the notice required by Section 19-A(3)(b) had been served.

Conclusion: A deposit in court under Section 19-A was not proved to be valid on the facts, and the tenant was held to be in default of rent, attracting eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act.

---