( 1 ) THE short point involved in this appeal is whether the Rent Controller can pass a composite order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) as well as eviction order under Section 14 (i) (a) or the said Act.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Ajay chadha and others sought eviction of M/s Globetech engineers, appellants herein on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellants are in occupation of premises no. 208, Pragati House, 47-43, Nehru Place, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,100/ -. When despite service of notice the appellants did not pay the arrears of rent, petition for eviction was filed, appellants despite service did not put in appearance, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. Ex-parte order was passed under Section 15 (1) of the Act on 15th September, 1984 with a direction to pay the entire arrears at the agreed rate of rent payable from 1st June, 1983 within one month from the date of the order, failing which it was further ordered that there will be deemed eviction of the appellant from the premises in question. Application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure (in short code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ) was dismissed.

( 3 ) IT is against the order of dismissal that the present appeal was preferred, inter alia, on the ground that composite order is bad in law. Since there were conflicting decisions of our own High Court as well as other High Courts, therefore, one of us. (Usha Mehra, in order to get the matter resolved, referred this matter to be placed before a larger bench vide order dated 21st March, 1997. Now, the matter has come before this division bench.

( 4 ) MR. VIJAY Kishan Jaitely to support his contention that the composite order passed by the Rent controller u/s 15 (1) and u/s 14 (1) (a) of the Act is invalid and illegal placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Chinnamarkathian alias muthu Gounder and another (in C. A. No. 2197 of 1969), chinna Gounder and another (in C. A. No. 2198 of 1969) and raja Gounder and another (in C. A. No. 2199 of 1969) v. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder and others, AIR 1982 supreme Court 137. In that case the Apex Court was dealing with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Cultivating tenants Protection Act (25 of 1955), and provisions of sub-Section 4 (b) of Section 3 of the said Act. The Apex court came to the conclusion that the provisions of the act do not contemplate passing of a composite order and observed as under :-

"that the language employed in that sub-section was self-evident, After the application is received and parties are summoned and representations are heard, the court must determine whether the cultivating tenant is in arrears of rent. If the answer is in the affirmative, it has to determine the arrears in terms of its money value. Thereafter, the revenue Divisional Officer must ascertain relative circumstances of the landlord and the tenant and those circumstances must be relatable to the need of the landlord for prompt payment and the present prevalent circumstances of the tenant relatable to the paying capacity. "

( 5 ) RELIANCE was also placed on the decision of oun High Court in the case of W. P. Vaid vs. S. K. R. Bhandari (Delhi) S. A. O. No. 228 of 1977 where the composite order for deposit of rent as well as eviction on the failure to deposit was held to be illegal and not sustainability. The learned Single Judge of this court while coming to this conclusion relied the decision of suptime Court in the cases of Chinnamarkathian alias muthu rounder and another etc, (Supra) and Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and another, AIR 1984 SC 1392. Another single Judge of this court in the case of Mohinder Singh vs Lajwanti, 1976 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 66 at page 62 held that Rent Controller had no power to order eviction on anticipatory default. In that case the tribunal passed a composite order subject to condition that eviction would stand cancelled on deposit