R.N. Aggarwal, J.
(1) MST. Mehr Nigar is a tenant in premises bearing No. 1037, Gali Anarwali, Kishen Ganj, Delhi, under the petitioner Mst. Begum Jan. The rent of the premises is Rs. 15.00per month. On 10th September 1966, the landlady served a notice of demand on the tenant, under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act hereinafter referred to as the ('Act'), for the arrears of renter the period 1st July, 1964 onwards The tenant deposited the arrears of rent on 26th September, 1967 for the period 1st August, 1965 to 30th September, 1967. The rent for the period prior to 1st August, 1965 had also been deposited by the tenant. T.he above mentioned fads arc net in dispute
(2) On 5it Decmber. 1967, the landlady filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of (a) non payment of rent, (b) misuse of the premises, and (e) sub-letting. On 3ih February, 1968, Shri S. R. Goel, Addl. Rent Controller, passed an order under section 14(1) of the Act directing the tenant to , or deposit the arrears of rent with effect from 1st October, 1967 at the rate of Rs. 15/ per month within one month from the date of the order, and further pay future rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month.
(3) Against the order of the Addl. Rent Controller dated 5th February 1968, the tenant went in appeal to the Pent Control Tribunal The Tribunal by an order dated 4th October, 1968, found that the tenant appellant having paid the arrears of rent for the period ending 30th September, 1967, the petition for her eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent was not maintainable and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Controller. Against this order, the landlady has come in appeal to this court.
(4) SUB-SECTION(L)OFSECTION 14 of the Act imposes a general restriction on the landlord's right to recover possession of tenanted premises. Clauses(a) to (b)of section 14(1) provide the grounds on which the landlord can recover possession of the premises from the tenant. We are in this case concerned with clause (a), which provides that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make, an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground that the tenant has neither paid non tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent had been served on the tenant by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act Section 14(2) provides that no order for recovery of possession of any premises aball be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) if the tenant makes payment or deposits as required by section 15. The relevant clause of section 15 reads as :
'15.(1) la every proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous lo that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.'
(5) The contention of Shri Patney, learned counsel for the appellant is that the notice of demand for the arrears of rent legally recoverable from the tenant was served on the tenant on 10th September, 1966 and the tenant having failed to pay or tender the arrears of the rent so claimed within two months of the service of the notice of demand, the tenant had failed to comply with the requirements of clause (a) of section 14(1) of the Act and he had rendered himself liable to eviction and that sub-section (2) of section 14 saved the tenant from eviction only if he made payment or deposit as required by section 15. The counsel contended that the finding of the Tribunal, that the tenant having paid the rent legally recoverable before he filing of the petition Bo cause of action survived to the landlord for recovery of possession on the ground of non-payment of rent is not sound There appears to be merit in this contention of the counsel. It is not disputed that the tenant had not paid the areas of the rent legally recoverable from him in pursuance of the notice of demand served on him within the period specified in clause (a) of section 14(1). thereforee, the tenant had rendered himself liable to eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant could have saved himself from eviction only if he Had made the payment or deposit as required by section 15. From a reading of the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Act, it is clear that once a tenant defaults in paying or tendering the rent as provided in section 14(1)(a), the landlord acquires the right to file an application to the bent Controller lor an order for the recovery of possession of the premises, In the case in band, the tenant had defaulted in paying the Rent as pregscribed in clause (a) and that gave the landlord the right to seek eviction of the tenant under section 14(1)(a). The deposit of the rent by the tenant after the expiry of the period prescribed would not be a valid tender or payment. In this view it cannot be said that the landlady had no cause of action to make an application for the recovery of possession of the premises for non-payment of rent. From this it would follow that the petition of the landlady for eviction of the tenant on the ground ofnon-payment of rent was competent.
(6) On an application moved by the landlady under section 15(1) of the Act, the Addl, Rent Controller had made an order directing the respondent to pay or deposit the arrears of rant with effect from 1st October 1967 at the rate of Rs. 15.00 per month within one month from the dale of the order and future rent month by month by the fifteenth of each succeeding month. This order is inconsonance with the provisions of section 15(1). Under section 14(2), the tenant could have saved his eviction on the ground specified in clause (a) of section 14(1) only if he had paid or deposited the rent as provided in file aforesaid order made under section 15. The view taken by the tribunal that the tenant having deposited the rent up to the end of september 1967, no cause of action was left for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and, thereforee, the order under section 15(1) passed by the Controller was not valid, is in my opinion, not sound.
(7) For the foregoing reasons, I would allow the appeal set aside the order of tribunal dated 4th October, 1968 and restore the order of the rent Controller. I would allow the tenant one month's time to comply with the directions contained in the order of the Controller.
(8) There will be no order as to costs.