A tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which protects against eviction for non-payment of rent, only once. Subsequent defaults in rent payment will lead to eviction.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the challenge is to the correctness of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal who has held that when an order under Section 15 (1) had been passed for the second time and the rent paid by the tenant, then eviction could not be ordered under Section 14 (l) (a) read with proviso to Section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a landlord-owner of shop No. M-19, Greater Kailash-l, Market, New Delhi. The said shop had been taken on rent by the respondent. The respondent was in arrears of rent. The appellant filed an application under S. 14 (l ) (a) on l3th March, 1973 for the eviction of the respondent on the ground of non payment of rent. The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15 (1) requiring the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. On the rent having been deposited an order was passed on 11th March, 1974 dismissing the eviction petition by giving to the tenant the benefit of Section 14 (2 ).

( 3 ) IT appears that the tenant again defaulted in payment of rent. A notice dated 28th April, 1978 was sent by the landlord, calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent with effect from 1st April, 1977 to 31st March, 1978 as well as to pay the future rent. According to the landlord this notice was not complied with. Rent for some of this period, namely, upto September, 1977 was paid. In August, 1978 a fresh petition under Section 14 (1) (a) was filed. This-petition was dismissed in April, 1979 on the ground that it had not been proved that the father of the appellant had the authority to file the said application for eviction. Thereupon the present application was filed on 24th May, 1979. On 6th September, 1979 the Controller, inter-alia, passed the following order :

"as agreed between the counsel for the parties, the respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner or deposit with the court, the rent for the period 1st August, 1979 upto date @ Rs. 100. 00 p. m. within one month from the date of this order without prejudice. "

( 4 ) THIS order was passed requiring the deposit of rent with effect from 1st August, 1979 because by that time the tenant had paid rent upto 31st July, 1979.

( 5 ) BY order dated 27th November, 1979 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowed the eviction petition by holding that the respondent had already availed of the benefit of Section 14 (2) earlier and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit once again. He rejected the other contentions on behalf of the respondent. One other main contention being that the identity of the premises in respect of which the present petition was filed was different from the one which was a subject matter of the eviction petition earlier which had culminated in the passing of the order dated 11th March, 1974. On the eviction order being passed the tenant was given 15 days time to vacate the premises.

( 6 ) AN appeal was filed against the said order. The first question raised before the Tribunal was as to whether the present eviction petition was in respect of the same premises which were the subject matter of the earlier petition. This point was decided by the Tribunal against the respondenttenant. The appeal of the respondent was, however, allowed on the other ground. It had been contended by the tenant that an order under Section 15 (1) having been passed he was entitled to the protection of Section 15 (6) and he could not be evicted. Following the decision of this court in the case of Banarsi Dass v. Mewadevi,xviii DLT (1980) 36 (SN), the Tribunal held that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 15 (6 ). The eviction petition filed by the landlord was accordingly dismissed.

( 7 ) THE aforesaid decision of the Tribunal is assailed in the present appeal.

( 8 ) THE first question which has to be decided is as to whether the tenant is entitled to the protection of Section 15 (6) or not. Before dealing with this question it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. The relevant