( 1 ) AN important question of law which has arisen in this appeal is whether the Rent Controller can pass a composite order digposing of the petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (a) read with Sections 14 (2) and 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the appellant is a tenant of the ground floor of House No. 2/14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. The said premises were taken on rent at Rs. 340. 00 per month from the respondent, who is the landlady and owner of the premises in question.

( 3 ) ON 12th July, 1977 the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona tide requirement and also on account of non-payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3100- upto30th June, 1977. The appellant-tenant claimed that he had spent some money on carrying out the repairs and white washing of tile premises in question. By an mterim older dated 19th April, 1978 passed under Section 15 (3) of the Act, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi directed the deposit of the arrears of rent from 1. 10. 76 to 31. 3. 78 after allowing adjustment of Rs. 2961 07 being the amount spent by the appellant on account of repairs and while washing of the premises inquestion. The amount ordered to be paid vide order dated 19th April, 1978 after allowing adjustment of Rs. 2961. 07 was deposited by the appellant on 16. 5. 1978.

( 4 ) THE eviction petition was subsequently disposed of by the Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 22nd October, 1986. The petition was dismissed on the ground of bona fide requirement but eviction of the appellant was decreed (in ground of non-payment of arrears of Rs. 2961. 07. which was the amount for which adjustment had been allowed by the Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 19th April, 1978 passed under Section 15 (3) of the Act. In the judgment dated 22nd October, 1986 the Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that this amount of Rs. 2961. 07 was payable by the appellant to the respondent landlady. Benefit was sought to be given by the Additional Rent Controller to the appellant under Section 14 (2) of the Act and a fresh order under Section 15 (1) was passed on 22nd October, 1986 directing the tenant to deposit the arrears amounting to Rs. 2961. 07 within one month of the order. In the said order it was further observed that "if the respondent will comply the order and has complied such order passed under Section 15 (1) of DRC Act dated 19. 4. 1978 then he shall be entitled for the benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act otherwise eviction shall follow in respect to the suit premise. bearing No. 2. 14 Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi as shown in the site plan Ext. AW 10/1. "

( 5 ) ON 24th December, 1986 the respondent filed an application for execution of the order of eviction alleging that the arrears of Rs. 2961. 07 had not been paid by the appellant-tenant within the stipulated period of one month. Notice was issued by the executing Court and, in reply thereto, it was contended on behalf of the tenant that payment had been remitted to the landlady by cheque but the same was not encashed.

( 6 ) BEFORE the Additional Rent Controller, an application was also filed by the tenant praying for condonation of delay in depositing the arrears. The case of the tenant was that the cheque tor the arrears of rent was sent under Certificate of Posting to the landlady. This cheque was not encashed. It was also the case of the tenant that for the month of October, 1986 rent was sent by Money Order on 11th November, 1986 but the landlady refused to receive the rent. The Additional Rent Controller vide his order dated 20ih May, 1988, came to the conclusion that there was no proof of the cheque having been sent, as alleged by the tenant He further held that, in any case, payment by cheque was not the agreed mode of payment of rent and even if the cheque was issued, the same would not have amou