Judgment

P. S. KAILASAM, J. - These appeals are by certificate, granted to Hem Chand, the tenant, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against the judgment of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court holding that the time prescribed under Sec. 15 (1) cannot be extended by the Rent Controller. Municipal Corporation of Delhi is the intervener in both the appeals.

2. The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. is the landlord. The appellant-tenant occupied the premises at an agreed rent of Rs. 165/- p. m. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent and the landlord issued a notice of demand on 10th August, 1963 calling upon the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,970/- being the arrears of rent and also complaining that he had unauthorisedly sublet the premises. The tenant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/-only towards arrears within the notice period. As the balance amount was not paid, on February 24, 1964, the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorised subletting. It impleaded the alleged sub-tenants also as respondents. On September 9, 1964, the Additional Rent Controller, on the application of the landlord passed an order under S .15 (1) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent due after deducting Rs. 1,000/- already paid and future rent at the rate of Rs. 165/- per month. The arrears were not paid within a month but the tenant deposited a sum of Rupees 3,455/- on December 15, 1964, being the rent in full due till the end of November, 1964. Subsequently, the rent was not deposited months by months and on July 15, 1965, the landlord made an application under Section 15 (7) of the Act and prayed that the defence of the tenant against eviction be struck out. The tenant then made good the deficiency and deposited the rent upto date. On October 15, 1965, the Additional Rent Controller struck out the defence of the tenant stating that on the date of the order i.e. October 15, 1965 there were arrears of rent. After that the Additional Rent Controller proceeded with the hearing of the application of the landlord and on November 26, 1965, passed an order of eviction on the ground of subletting. He declined to order eviction for non-payment of rent because the tenant had deposited the arrears of rent on the date when the defence was struck out.

3. Aggrieved by these orders the tenant filed two appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal, one against the order striking out the defence and the other against the order granting eviction. The Tribunal decided both the appeals in favour of the tenant holding that since the tenant had gradually cleared off arrears amounting to Rs. 5000/- or more which indicated his bona fide intentions to pay all the rent his defence ought not to have been struck out. The delay in making the deposits was condoned subject to payment of Rs. 150/- by the tenant as cost. The order of the Additional Rent Controller striking out the defence and granting an order for eviction in favour of the landlord was set aside. The case was remanded for being tried on merits after giving the tenant an opportunity to defend his eviction on the ground of subletting.

4. Aggrieved at the orders of the Tribunal the landlord filed two appeals before the High Court. The appeals were heard by a single Judge but having regard to the important questions of law the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench held that when a tenant makes default in deposit or payment under Section 15 the Rent Controller is bound to pass an order for recovery of possession and cannot refuse the landlords prayer for eviction. The Full Bench held that Rent Controller had no right to condone the delay if any, in making payment according to the requirements of Section 15 (1) of the Act.

5. Before us it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court was in error in holding that under S. 15 (1) of the Act the Rent Control