V.S. Deshpande, J.
(1) The tenant had contended before the Rent Control Tribunal that the order under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 passed against him should have been restricted to the deposit of the arrears of rent due till the date of the application made by the landlord there under and that sub-Section of Section 15 does not contemplate that the Controller should order the tenant to pay rent pendente life. This contention was negatived by the Tribunal. Hence this second appeal.
(2) The distinction between sub-Section (1) and sub-Section (2) of Section 15 are as follows : 1. While the petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of real falls under sub Section (1), petition for eviction on other grounds falls under sub-Section (2). thereforee, while the Controller has to make an order under sub-Section (1) he would not make order under sub-Section (2)except on an application by the landlord.
(3) Such an application under sub-Section (2) may be made by the landlord even though there are no arrears of rent but merely with a view to make the tenant to pay the rent regularly and on his failure to do so to seek an order from the Controller under sub-Section (7).
(4) If an application under sub Section (2) can be made even though there are no arrears of rent, it would follow that the order of the Controller would have to be 'in accordance with the provisions of subSection (1)' in the substantive sense.
(5) The meaning of the above words is not merely that the Controller has to follow the procedural contents of sub Section (1) but also the substantive contents of it. Sari Jain emphasised that sub-Section (2) does not refer to the deposit of future rent by the tenant while sub-Section (1) does so. The answer to this argument is that sub-Section (2) does not refer to (he deposit even of areears of rent by the tenant. It entirely depends on the language of sub Section (1) as to what order the Controller has to pass under sub Section (2). Since the order under sub-Section (1) has to be in respect of both the arrears of rent as well as subsequent rent, it would follow that the order under sub-Section (2) also has to be in respect of both of them. The meaning of the words 'the amount of rent legally recoverable from the tenant' is wide enough to comprise not only the arrears of rent but also the liability of the tenant to pay the future rent from month to month to the landlord. It is the liability under the tenancy and not the period of time fur which the rent is due which is emphasised by these wos:ds. Further while the petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent can be satisfied by the deposit of arrears up to date, a petition for eviction on other grounds cannot be so satisfied. In the former, the ground for eviction itself would disappear when the rent is deposited. Under Section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952, the arrears up to date had to be deposited on the very first date of the hearing and there could be no farther proceedings in the case thereafter. But in a petition for eviction on grounds other than the arrears of rent the petition is bound to continue for trial on merits even after the deposit of arrears of rent. It must follow, thereforee, that the order under sub Section (2) must relate not only to the arrears but also to the future rent. Otherwise the landlord will have to make an application under sub-Section (2) every month till the petition is finally decided. The landlord would not get the benefit of sub-Section (7) if the tenant makes a default in paying of rent during any month after the passing of the order under sub- Section (2).
(6) For the above reasons it is clear that the order under sub Section (2) has to be for the payment of not only arrears but also future rent just as an order under sub-Section (1) has to be for the payment of both. The order under appeal has, thereforee, taken the correct view of the meaning of sub-Section (2) of Section 15. The appeal is, thereforee, dismissed in liming.sc