( 1 ) THE appellant is a tenant in the suit premises being one room on the ground floor in House No. 685, Gali No. 3, Punjabi Basti, Military Road, Anand Parbat, Delhi.

( 2 ) PRIOR to the institution of the present proceedings, the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent to the respondent but since he complied with the interim orders passed under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he was given the benefit granted by Section 14 (2) of the Act, by an order dated 19th November, 1981.

( 3 ) AS per the version of the respondent/landlord, it is alleged that the appellant did not thereafter deposit rent for the period from 1st November, 1981 upto 31st March, 1982. The respondent sent a notice of demand dated 12th April, 1982 stating therein that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent for three consecutive months and was, therefore, called upon to make the payment mentioned in the notice of demand within a period of two months. The appellant did not respond to this notice. In terms of the proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Act, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act for the second time and so was liable to be evicted under the provisions of Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act.

( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the respondent filed an eviction petition under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. This provision, as well as Section 14 (2) of the Act, read as follows:

"14. Protection of tenant against eviction - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided 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 one or more of the following grounds only, namely: (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); (b) to (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15 : Provided that no tenant-shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-section if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three consecutive months. "

( 5 ) IN response to the eviction petition, the appellant stated that in terms of the order dated 19th November, 1981 passed in the earlier eviction petition, the appellant had deposited the arrears of rent upto 31st December, 1981 vide a challan Ex. R1, dated 16th December, 1981. He had also deposited the rent for the months of January and February, 1982 vide a challan Ex. R2, dated 5th/25th February, 1982. Accordingly, the appellant contended that he was not in default of arrears of rent for three consecutive months.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties were heard on 11th and 21st February, 2000 when judgment was reserved.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Prakash Mehra v. K. L. Malhotra ,air 1989 SC 1652,wherein Supreme Court had held in paragraph 7 of thg Report that the arrears of rent envisaged by Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act are the arrears demanded by the notice for payment of arrears of rent.

( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court there have to be three consecutive defaults on the part of the appellant for the period prior to the notice of deman