Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 2984 of 1983. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.1982 of the Patna High Court in Appellate Decree No. 275 of 1981. 554 Govind Mukhoty and K.N. Rai for the Appellant. F.S. Nariman and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA	 J. The question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the default by a tenant in payment of rent for the period before the Bihar Buildings (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Act	 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Rent Act)	 was extended and became applicable	 can be the basis for holding him a defaulter within the meaning of clause (d) of section 11(1) of the Bihar Rent Act	 1947 and	 therefore	 liable to be evicted. The building in question is in Danapur Cantonment area near the town of Patna. The appellant was inducted as a tenant therein by the owner one Janki Devi under a document of lease for a fixed period. Since the deed was not executed in accordance with the requirements of law it remained inoperative. After the period was over	 Janki Devi institut ed a suit on 10.12.1968 for eviction of the appellant and for a decree for arrears of rent for the period May to August 1968	 which was registered as Title Suit No. 3 17 of 1968. The Bihar Rent Act was not then applicable to Danaput Cantonment. During the pendency of the case on 14.2.1970 the provisions of the Bihar Rent Act were extended to this area. Presumably in view of the fact that the lease deed could not be treated to be valid in the eye of law	 a prayer for withdrawal of the relief for eviction was made by the plain tiff and was allowed with leave to file a fresh suit. A decree for arrears of rent	 however	 was passed. The present suit was filed on 28.5.1974 for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of bona .fide personal necessity and default in payment of rent for the periods May to July	 October and November 1968	 December 1969 to Febru ary 1970	 and December 1973 to April 1974. The trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds. On appeal by the appellant	 the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the find ing on the question of bona fide personal necessity but affirmed the decree on the ground of default. The High Court has by the impugned judgment maintained the decree. The appellant denied the allegation that he has defaulted in payment of rent. The first appellate court on a consideration of the evidence held that the appellant did default in payment of rent for 555 May	 June	 July	 October and November 1968	 and December 1969 to February 1970	 and on that basis decreed the suit. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that non payment of rent for the period before 14.2.1970 (when the Bihar Rent Act was not applicable to the Cantonment area) is not relevant	 and since the rent of less than a month in February 1970 remained unpaid after the Bihar Rent Act was extended	 it could not be legitimately made the basis for the decree of eviction. The High Court agreed with the appellant that the Bihar Rent Act did not apply to the Cantonment area with retrospective effect	 but proceeding further it said that in view of the decision in Kapur Chand Jain vs B.S. Grewal and others; 	 	 it must be held that the Act	 although prospective in its application	 takes into account the default in payment of rent of the earlier period. There is no manner of doubt that the Act was applied to the area concerned on 14.2.1970 with prospective effect. The question whether the Legislature intended to include previous default of the tenant in payment of rent within the grounds for eviction has to be answered by construing the language of the relevant provisions in the Bihar Rent Act. Although in Kapur Chand 's case (supra) a similar dispute was raised	 it is not permissible to apply the decision irre spective of the difference in language of the two statutes. It is true that section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act	 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) which was relevant in the reported case also dealt with the grounds for eviction of a tenant	 but there was clear indi cation in the section that the grounds for eviction included the earlier default also. The relevant portion of the sec tion	 as quoted in the judgment	 reads as follows: "9(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force	 no land owner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant: (i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of a small landowner; or (ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause; or (iii) is in arrears of rent at the commence ment of this Act; or 556 Explanation For the purposes of clause (iii)	 a tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears of rent at the commencement of this Act	 only if the payment of arrears is not made by the tenant within a period of two months from the date of notice of the execu tion of decree or order	 directing him to pay such arrears of rent. " It will be seen that clause (iii) in unambiguous terms refers to the arrears of rent for the period before the commencement of the Punjab Act. Dr. Y.S. Chitale	 learned counsel for the landlord Respondent	 contended that the judgment of this Court rested on the interpretation of clause (ii) of section 9(1) of the Punjab Act which did not contain any words similar to those in clause (iii). Strongly relying on the following observation: "In our opinion	 the conduct of the tenant prior to the coming into force of the new section can be taken into account. No doubt a statute must be applied prospectively. But a statute is not applied retrospectively because a part of the requisite for its action is drawn from a moment of time prior to its passing. The clause in question makes a par ticular conduct the ground for an application for eviction. " It was urged that the Bihar Act contained similar provisions and the ratio in Kapur Chand 's case is fully applicable. In view of vital difference in the language of the two Acts	 we do not find ourselves in a position to accept the argument. Having regard to the scheme of the Punjab Act and the language used therein specially the words mentioned in clause (iii) of section 9(1) it is apparent that the Act took into consideration the earlier default in payment of rent within the grounds for eviction. There was no dispute in Kapur Chand 's case about the construction of the section. The point which was raised before this Court was whether the past conduct of the tenant could be legitimately taken into account by the statute which was prospective in application. And this point was answered in favour of the landlord. In the case before us the appellant is not contending that the past conduct of a tenant cannot be taken into account by the Legislature if it so intends. The question is whether such an intention can be spelled out from section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Rent Act which reads as follows: 557 "11. Eviction of tenants. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or law to the contrary but subject to the provisions of the and to those of section 12	 where a tenant is in possession of any building	 he shall not be liable to eviction therefrom except in execution of a decree passed by the Court on one or more of the following grounds: (d) where the amount of two months ' rent lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by contract or	 in the absence of such contract	 by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with section 13 ;" 7. Dr. Chitale has streneously contended that even independent of the Bihar Rent Act the tenant appellant was under a duty to regularly pay the monthly rent by the corre sponding succeeding month	 under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act	 and if he defaulted in due per formance of his duty he must be presumed to be made liable for eviction by the Legislature while enacting section 11(1)(d). He emphasised that clause (d) was not saddling the tenant with a new duty which was not there earlier. The Act intends to deprive the erring tenant negligent in payment of rent from its benefits and there is	 therefore	 no reason to hold that his earlier conduct is not to be taken into account. The argument does not appear to be sound inasmuch as it ignores the following words towards the end of clause (d)	 quoted above	 which appear to us to be very illuminating: ". or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with section 13;" 8. Ordinarily where a tenant offers the rent which is refused by the landlord without any justifiable reason the tenant is held to have fully performed his duty. Under the Bihar Rent Act	 however	 the position is a little different. Even on the refusal by the landlord to accept rent lawfully offered by the tenant	 the tenant is under a further duty as mentioned in section 13(1) to remit such rent by postal money order 558 to the landlord. Where a bona fide doubt arises as to the person who is entitled to receive rent the tenant is permit ted by section 13(2) to deposit the rent in the prescribed man ner. The latter part of section 11(1)(d)	 quoted above	 deals with cases attracting section 13. The result is that if a tenant has made a proper offer to pay the rent and the landlord has unreasonably refused to accept it	 the tenant cannot escape the liability of eviction under clause (d) unless he proves that he had further remitted the rent by postal money order. This position is fully settled. If the situation is analysed in this light it will be seen that clause (d) can be held to apply only where section 13 of the Bihar Rent Act is attracted. If section 13 cannot be applied to a particular situation	 clause (d) also would not apply. section 13 could not obviously be applicable before the Act was extended to the area in ques tion. Consequently it must be held that the default for the earlier period cannot be the basis for a decree of eviction under section 11(1)(d). Mr. F.S. Nariman	 who also argued on behalf of the respondent	 feebly suggested that the extension of the Bihar Rent Act to the Cantonment area may be held to be applicable with retrospective effect in view of sub sections (2) and (4) of section 3 of the . Dr. Chitale also referred to the observa tion in paragraph 8 of the judgment in Smt. Sant Kaur and another vs Ganesh Chaudhary	 AIR 1949 Patna 137 on the question of retrospectivity. We do not find any merit in the argument. The language of the Bihar Rent Act is clear and does not admit any doubt about its prospective nature. So far as section 3 of the Cantonments Act is concerned	 sub section (2) merely permits the Central Government to extend any rent enactment from an earlier date subject to certain limita tions	 and sub section (4) is irrelevant in the present context as its scope is limited to dealing with orders and decrees passed before the extension of a rent law to a Cantonment area. When this was pointed out to Mr. Nariman	 he did not further pursue with his argument	 and Dr. Chitale in express terms conceded that the Bihar Rent Act could not be interpreted to have been extended to the Cantonment area with retrospective effect. In that view	 we need not detain ourselves further on this point. Mr. Nariman lastly urged that the appellant also defaulted in payment of rent for December 1973 to April 1974	 a period of five months	 after the Act was applied to the cantonment area	 and the impugned decree	 therefore	 should not be disturbed. On behalf of the appellant it was suggested that in view of the finding in paragraph 12 of the judgment of the first appellate court it should be presumed that the 559 respondents ' case of default for the subsequent period was rejected. We have been taken through the judgments of the first appellate court and the High Court and we find that the controversy with respect to the alleged default for the later period has been left undetermined. Since the question is dependent on an appraisal of the evidence led by the parties	 we are of the view that the case should be remitted to the first appellate court for the decision on the ques tion whether the plaintiff landlord has proved the defend ent tenant 's default in payment of rent for the period December 1973 to April 1974. If the learned Subordinate Judge comes to the conclusion that the tenant did default within the meaning of section 11(1)(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease	 Rent and Eviction) Act	 1947 for two months or more during this period	 he would decree the suit; otherwise the suit would be dismissed. In the result	 the appeal is allowed	 the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court are set aside and the case is remitted to the first appellate court for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. The costs shall follow the final result in the suit. G.N. Appeal al lowed.

The appellant was inducted as a tenant in the building in question under a document of lease. Since the deed was not executed in accordance with the requirements of law	 it remained inoperative. After the lease period the owner instituted a suit for eviction of the appellant and for a decree for arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit the provisions of the Bihar Rent Act were extended to the area	 and as such the prayer for withdrawal of the relief for eviction was allowed with leave to file a fresh suit. However	 decree for arrears of rent was passed. Thereafter a fresh suit was filed. The Trial Court decreed the suit on both the grounds of personal necessity and default in pay ment of rent. On appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed the finding on the question of bona fide personal necessity	 but affirmed the decree on the ground of default. The High Court	 on appeal maintained the decree. The present appeal by special leave	 is against the High Court 's judgment. On behalf of the appellant	 it was contended that non payment of rent (when the Bihar Rent Act was not applicable to the area) is not relevant and so it could not be legiti mately made the basis for the decree of eviction. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that even independent of the Bihar Rent Act the appellant was under a duty to regularly pay the monthly rent and for the default	 he must be presumed to be made liable for eviction under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. Allowing this appeal	 HELD: 1. There is no manner of doubt that the Act was applied to the area concerned on 14.2.1970 with prospective effect. The ques 553 tion whether the Legislature intended to include previous default of the tenant in payment of rent within the grounds for eviction has to be answered by construing the language of the relevant provisions in the Bihar Rent Act. [555C D] 2. Ordinarily where a tenant offers the rent which is refused by the landlord without any justifiable reason the tenant is held to have fully performed his duty. Under the Bihar Rent Act	 however	 the position is a little different. Even on the refusal by the landlord to accept rent lawfully offered by the tenant	 the tenant is under a further duty as mentioned in section 13(1) to remit such rent by postal money order to the landlord. Where a bona fide doubt arises as to the person who is entitled to receive rent the tenant is permitted by section 13(2) to deposit the rent in the prescribed manner. The latter part of section 11(1)(d)	 quoted above	 deals with cases attracting section 13. The result is that if a tenant has made a proper offer to pay the rent and the landlord has unreasonably refused to accept it	 the tenant cannot escape the liability of eviction under clause (d) unless he proves that he had further remitted the rent by postal money order. This position is fully settled. If the situation is analysed in this light it will be seen that clause (d) can be held to apply only where section 13 of the Bihar Rent Act is attracted. If section 13 cannot be applied to a particular situation	 clause (d) also would not apply. Section 13 could not obviously be applicable before the Act was extended to the area in ques tion. Consequently it must be held that the default for the earlier period cannot be the basis for a decree of eviction under section 11(1)(d). [557G H; 558A C] K.C. Jain vs B.S. Grewal & Ors.	 ; distinguished. Since the question is dependent on an appraisal of the evidence led by the parties	 the case should be remitted to the first appellant court for the decision on the ques tion whether the landlord has proved the tenant 's default in payment of rent for the period from December 1973 to April 1974. If the Subordinate Judge comes to the conclusion that the tenant did default within the meaning of section 11(1)(d) of the Act for two months or more during this period	 he would decree the suit; otherwise the suit would be dismissed. [559B C]