V.S. Deshpande, J.
(1) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the legality of the order dated January 22, 1973 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi, in a petition for eviction filed by the petitioner landlord' against Respondent No. 2 tenant has been challenged in the following circumstances.
(2) The petition for eviction was filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay arrears of rent p the premies within two months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears had been served on*the tenant by the landlord within the meaning of clause (a)of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi-Rent Control Act, l958(hereinafter called the Act). In such a petition it is mandatory under section 15(l) that the Controller shall pass an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord the rent of the premises at the rate at which it was last paid for the period for which the.arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit month by month by the 15th of each month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. The Act does not provide for any exception to this rule embodied- in section 14(1).
(3) The learned Rent Controller, however, thought that the rule embodied in section 15(1) was for the exclusive benefit of the tenant. That benefit is available to the tenant under the principal part of section 14(2) of the Act. there under if after an order made under section 15(1) the tenant makes the payment of the rent as ordered, then the Controller would be bound to refuse the relief of recovery of possession to the landlord on the ground of non-payment of.rent. The proviso to section 14(2) however says that' the tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) if having obtained such benefit once, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. The tenant is said to have obtained the benefit of section 14(2) once and has apparently committed three con secutive defaults in payment of rent thereafter. The Controller, thereforee, come to the conclusion that the benefit of section 14(2) would not be available to the-tenant in the present case even if the Controller were to make an order for payrnent of rent under section 15(1). The Controller, thereforee, seems to think that the making of such an order under section 15(1) would be pointless. He, thereforee, refused to pass the order under section 15(1). It is that order dated January 22, 1973 refusing to pass the order under section 15(1) which is under challenge before me.
(4) It obvious that the learned Controller has ignored the fact that the order under section 15(1) is passed not only for the'benefit of the tenant but also for the benefit of the landlord. The)Controller has totally ignored the benefit to the jandlord which is also insured by an order under section 15(1). As observed by a Full Bench of this Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd v. Hem Chand^ the policy underlying all these sub-sections (of S. 15(1)) is that the tenant should not be allowed to contest the eviction application without payment of rent during the pendency of the proceedings.^ An order under section 15(1) ^ has to be passed by the Controllor to ensume the fulfillment of this object. If the tenant fails to pay the rent so ordered, then under section 15(7) of the Act the Court would be bound to strike of if the defense of the tenant as was held by the Full Bench in the decision cited above. It Was also held that the Court has no discretion in the matter. The penalty against the tenant under section 15(7) has to follow the failure of the tenant to pay the rent under section 15(1). This gives the landlord a valuable right to obtain an order for eviction against the tenant and deprives the tenant of an opportunity to defend him self against the petitioner for eviction:
(5) It follows, thereforee, that, even when the tenant has already . enjoyed the benefit of section 14(2) and is not entitled to that benefit again having committed three consecutive defults in payment of rent with in the meaning of the proviso to S. 14(2) still order under S. 15(1) has to be passed. It has to be passed not for the benefit of the tenant but for the benefit of the landlord. It is not, thereforee, point less, as the Controller seems to have thought, to pass an order under under section 15(1) in acase like the present one. The order dated January 22, 1973 is, thereforee, set aside. The petition is allowed and the Controller is directed to pass a suitable order under section 15(1) of the Act in the light of the circumstances of the case and the remarks made above.
(6) The parties are directed to appear before the Controller on May 13,1974..
(7) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.