( 1 ) THE controversy in this second appeal against order dated 8th August 1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal lies in a narrow compass ; the crucial question which falls for consideration bearing whether an order under Section 15 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) can be made in a petition for recovery of possession of the demised premises under a limited tenancy created under Section 21 of the Act.

( 2 ). The facts germane to the disposal of this appeal succinctly are that a limited tenancy for a period of three years with effect from 1st August 79 was created in respect of premises bearing No. E-25, Defence Colony, New Delhi, pursuant to the permission granted by an Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide order dated 31st July 1979 under Section 21 of the Act. On the expiry of the period of tenancy the respondent-landlord moved an application through his General Attorney Mrs. Sushila Lochan Singh for being put back into possession of the demised premises. The execution application was, however, hotly contested by the appellant-tenant who called in question the legality and validity of the order of the Additional Rent Controller granting permission for creation of a limited tenancy on various grounds. During the course of the said proceeding the respondent-landlord made an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act for a direction to the appellant to pay the arrears of rent at the agreed rate of rent with effect from 1st December 1932 and also to pay future rent month by month regularly as contemplated in Section 15 (2) of the Act. The said application was opposed by the appellant on two grounds, namely, (1) that provisions of Section 15 (2) of the Act could not be invoked in a proceeding under Section 21, and (2) that there was no valid power of attorney in favour of Mrs. Sushila Lochan Singh and as such she was not competent to take out execution of the order as contemplated in Section 21 of the Act much less ask for payment of arrears of rent. However, both the objections were repelled by the learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 28lh May 1984 and a direction was issued to the appellant to pay to the petitioner or deposit in Court the entire arrears of rent at Rs. 7,650!- per mensem with effect from 1st December 1982 uptil date and also to pay future rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month as comtemplated in Section 15 (2) of the Act.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved the appellant-tenant preferred an appeal in the Court of the Rent Controller Tribunal but met with no success and the same was dismissed vide order dated 8th August 1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal. Still not satisfied he has come up in cond appeal.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the precise argument put forth by Shri Hari Shankar, the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be useful to extract below the relevant provisions of Sections 15and21 of the Act :

"15. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction- (1) In every proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14, the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. (2) If, in any proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on any ground other than that referred to in Sub-section (1), the tenant contexts the claim for eviction, the landlord may, at a