JUDGMENT

R. B. MISRA, J.:— The fate of the present connected appeals by special leave hinges upon the interpretation of S. 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1958").

2. Premises No. 9607 known as Pyare Lal Building, Janpath and Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, is owned by the appellants. Three different portions of the said building were let out to three different firms, M/s. Pearey Lal Workshop (P) Ltd., M/s. Ghaziabad Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. and M/s. Pearey Lal & Sons, on agreed rent of Rs. 400/-, Rs. 273/- and Rs. 1094/- per month respectively.

3. The tenants-respondents had applied for fixation of standard rent before the Rent Controller who fixed standard rent of the three promises but on appeal the order of the Rent Controller fixing standard rent was set aside by the High Court by its order dated May 22, 1972 holding that the tenants were liable to pay the agreed rent.

4. It appears that the tenants fell in arrears of rent and did not pay the same in spite of service of notice of demand. The appellants. therefore. were compelled to file three different petitions for eviction of the respondents under S. 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1952"). During the pendency of the proceedings the Act of 1958 came into force. The tenants however deposited the arrears and got the benefit of non-eviction under S. 13(2) of the Act of 1952 which provides that no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed on the ground of default in payment of rent if. on the first date of the hearing of the proceedings for eviction or within such further time as may be allowed by the Court, the tenant pays in cash the arrears of rent then due together with the costs of the suit.

5. The respondents again committed a default in the payment of arrears of rent and failed to pay the same within two months of the service of notice of demand as required by Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Act of 1958. The appellants therefore filed three petitions giving rise to the present appeals for eviction on the ground of second default. The respondents, however deposited the arrears of rent within one month of the date of the order as contemplated by S. 15 of the Act of 1958 and sought the protection of non-eviction within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 of the Act of 1958. The-appellants, however, sought the advantage of the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 and alleged that the respondents had derived the benefit of non-eviction under S. 13(2) of the Act of 1952 once and they are not entitled to get the same benefit under S. 14(2) twice over in view of the proviso to sub-section of S. 14 of the Act of 1958.

6. These petitions for eviction were resisted by the respondents on the ground, inter alia. that they had deposited the arrears of rent as provided by S. 15 of the Act of 1958. They were entitled to get the benefit of sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 and the benefit derived by the respondents under S. 13(2) of the Act of 1952 will not stand in the way of the respondents getting the benefit of sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 of the Act of 1958.

7. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petitions of the appellants holding that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 of the Act on account of the deposit made by them in pursuance of the provisions of S. 15 of the Act of 1958. He was of the view that the benefit once derived by the respondents under S. 13(2) of the Act of 1952 will not attract the proviso to sub-sec. (2) and they are entitled to the benefit of non-eviction under S. 14(2) of the Act of 1958.

8. The appellants feeling aggrieved took up the matter before the Rent Control Tribunal by way of appeal but the Tribunal relying upon Dhan Raj Jayna v. S. P. Singh, AIR 1973 Delhi 297 dismissed the appeal. The appellants took up the matter to the High Court in second appeal but those appeals also met the same fate.