A tenant who seeks protection against eviction under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act must deposit arrears of rent legally recoverable from him, including the rent for the period subsequent to the arrears up to the end of the month previous to the deposit.

( 1 ) THE relevant facts for the decision of this second appeal are these : The appellant Shital Parshad is a tenant of premises described as 307/2 Mohalla Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, at a rent of Rs. 46. 00 per month under Mohan Lal. On 13th September 1973 the landlord served a notice on the tenant demanding the arrears of rent since 1st July 1973. On 16th November 1973 grounds : (a) non-filled an application for the eviction of the tenant on the landlord payment of arrears of rent and (b) that he required the premises bonafide for his own occupations.

( 2 ) THE tenant in reply controverted the allegations of the landlord. The tenant pleaded that the rent for July 1973 was paid to the landlord but he refused to issue the receipt inspite of registered notice dated 7th September 1973. The tenant further pleaded that he had tendered the rent for the months of August, September and October 1973 to the landlord but the landlord refused to accept the rent. The tenant further denied that the landlord required the premises bonafide for his own occupation.

( 3 ) ON 27th November 1974 the question of making anorder under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, called "the Act") came up for consideration before the Additional Rent Controller but he deferred the matter till after the parties produce evidence.

( 4 ) ON 9th July 1976 the Additional Rent Controller found that the landlord did not require the premises for his own occupation and further made the following order in regard to the arrears of rent :

"the result is that petition succeeds under Clause (a) but fails under clause (e) of provisons to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 DRC Act. u/s/ 15 (i) the respondent is directed to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 46. 00 since 1. 7. 73 upto 30. 6. 76 within one month from today failing which he shall be evicted from the disputed premises but on his depositing the said amount, he shall get the benefit of Section 14 (2) and in that event the application u/s 14 (l) (a) shall stands dismissed". On 5th August 1976 the tenant deposited the arrears of rent from 1st July 1973 to 30th June 1976. On 20th September 1976 the Additional Rent Controller found that the full amount of the arrears of rent had not been deposited and consequently issued an order for the eviction of the tenant.

( 5 ) AGAINST the above order the tenant filed an appeal in the Court of the Rent Control Tribunal. Mr. J. D. Jain who heard the appeal found that the tenant had not made the deposite as required by Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 and upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

( 6 ) AGAINST the above order the tenant has come in second appeal to this Court.

( 7 ) THE relevant portion of Section 15 with which we are concerned in this case reads as under :-

"15 (1 ). In every proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clauses (a) of the paoviso to Sub-Section (l) 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 which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the pericd subsequent there to upto 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 a tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (3), no order shall be made for the recovery of possession on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant, but the controller may allow such costs as he may deem to the landlord. "

( 8 ) FROM a reading of the above provision it is clear that the te