seen that the deposit of rent was made for the month of October, November, December, 1997 together. The said application cannot also be taken into account that it was in compliance to Section 5 (4) of the Act of 1972. Taking into account that there was no offer as well as refusal by the plaintiffs for the months of November and December, 1997 and without there being a refusal for the month of November and December, 1997 the condition precedent for exercise of the option under Section 5 (4) of the Act of 1972 is necessary for which the deposit so made cannot be considered as a valid deposit in accordance with law. Further to that, it would also be seen from Ext. C, the deposit of rent was for the month of November, 1998 to March, 1999; vide Ext. I, the deposit of rent was from August, 2000 to September, 2000 in advance along with the rent of July, 2000; Ext.J whereby there was deposit of rent for the months of May and June, 2000 in advance; Ext.K where the deposit of rent was made in advance. Similarly, Ext.L to AF would also show that the deposits of rent were in advance. It is also relevant to take note of that most of the rent cases, pertaining to deposit of rent, were dismissed on the ground of not taking steps. This aspect of the matter would be seen from the cross-examination of the defendant witness No.1 who admitted the same. Considering the above, it is therefore, clear that the defendants were not entitled to the benefit under Section 5 (4) of the Act of 1972 as there was no deposit of rent in accordance with the said provision. Both the learned trial courts as well as the First Appellant Court had duly taken into consideration the said aspect of the matter and this Court does not find any perversity in the said findings. Consequently, the issue pertaining to default in payment of rent, as held concurrently by the courts below, is upheld.
