The Controller has no power to condone the delay in deposit of rent under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, so as to wipe off the default that has occurred, if the landlord has fulfilled the conditions mentioned in Section 14(2) of the Act.

( 1 ) THE Appellant, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited in these two connected appeals, S. A. O. No. 200/67 and 208/67 is the landlord of the premises occupied by respondent No. 1, Hem Chand, as a tenant. The agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 165. 00 per month. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent. The landlord issued and served notice of demand and ejectment dated August 10, 1963 on him demanding arrears of rent and also complaining that he had unauthorisedly sublet the premises under his tenancy. The tenant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 only towards the arrears demanded Within the notice period. On February 24, 1964, the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of the Delhi. Rent Control Act (hereafter called the Act ) on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorised subletting and otherwise parting with possession of the premises. The alleged sub-tenants, M/s. Bipin Kumar Satish Kumar, were also impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the application. On September 9, 1964, the Additional Rent Controller, on the application of the landlord, passed an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent due after deducting Rs. 1,000. 00 already paid and future rent at the rate of Rs. 165. 00 per month. In pursuance of the order, the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,455. 00 on December 15, 1964 which represented rent till end of November, 1954. Rent becoming due thereafter was not deposited month by month as required in terms of the order under Section 15 (1 ). On July 15, 1965, the landlord, therefore, made an application under Section 15 (7) of the Act and prayed that the defence of the tenant against eviction be struck out. The tenant thereupon made good the deficiency and deposited the rent upto date. On October 15, 1965 the Additional Rent Controller, however, struck out the defence of the tenant. By a second order dated November 26, 1965, then passed an order for eviction in favour of the landlord and held that even though the tenant was not liable for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent because he had deposited the arrears of rent demanded from him in the notice of demand but he was liable to be evicted on the other ground of unauthorised subletting. The finding of subletting was based on evidence of the landlord alone and the evidence produced by the tenant was not at all seen because his defence had been struck out.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED from these orders, the tenant filed two appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal, one directed against the order striking out the defence and the other against the order granting eviction. By a common order dated March 31, 1967, the Tribunal decided both the appeals and held that since the tenant had "gradually cleared off arrears amounting to Rs. 5,000. 00 or more" this indicated his bonafide intentions to pay all the rent and as the striking out of the defence was a drastic step in the facts of this case it should not have been resorted to. The delay in making the deposits was consequently condoned subject to payment of Rs. 150. 00 by the tenant as conditional cost and the order of the Additional Rent Controller striking out the defence and granting an order for eviction in favour of the landlord was set aside. The case was remanded for being tried on merits after giving the tenant an opportunity to defend his eviction on the ground of subletting.

( 3 ) AGAINST this order, the landlord has filed the above two appeals which came up before one of us (B. C. Misra, J. ). Having regard to the importance of the questions involved he framed the following two questions for consideration by a full bench:

(1) Whether the Controller has jurisdiction and power to condone the delay in deposit of the amount of rent ordered by him under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act? (2) If the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, what is the legal effect of condonation of dela