The Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has jurisdiction to determine the tenancy relationship, even if denied by the person proceeded against as a tenant, and can pass interim orders, including orders for deposit of rent, while determining the tenancy relationship.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called-the Act by M/s Rai and Sons Pvt. Ltd. a company which is alleged to be the tenant in a portion of the building known as Phelps Building, in Con- naught Mace, New Delhi, against the order daied March 18, 1970, of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, who dismissing its appeal, confirmed the order dated January 12, 1970 of the learned Additional Controller, Delhi directing the appellant under section 15 (2) of the Act to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs 1,940,-per month with effect from January 1, 1969 up to date within one month of the order and also to deposit futhre rent month by month by the 15th day of the next following month at the same rate.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the application for eviction of the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 5 on the ground that the appellant had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of portions of the tenancy premises in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 without the landlord s consent, an application under section 15 (2) of the Act was made by the respondent No. 1 for directions against the appellant to pay arrears of rent and the future rent. . The appellant company constested the claim of respondent No. 1. It contended that the eviction petition was filed on the basis of a tenancy which admittedly was created in the year 1955. This tenancy was in favour of one Rai Ranjit Rai in his personal capacity with a right to use the premises for the purposes of the business of the companies with which he was associated. Although the rent was paid by the appellant during the past few years, this, the appellant contended, was being done for and on behalf of Rai Ranjit Rai, who never surrendered his tenancy and continues to be the tenant up to this date. The rate of rent was also disputed. The appellant s averments were, however, denied by respondent No 1, the landlord.

( 3 ) THE Additional Controller held that prima fade the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties; and that the appellant had prima. fade agreed to pay Rs. 1940per month as rent. The appellant was, therefore, directed to pay the arrears of rent and future, as stated above The learned Rent Control Tribunal in appeal, concurred in this finding, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the said order of the learned Additional Controller. The appellant has come up to this court in second appeal against the said order.

( 4 ) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ved Vyas, REFERRED TO three alternatives which were offered by the appellant-Company to respondent No. 1 during the course of arguments before the learned Rent Control Tribunal and which offer was repeated in this court, i. e. (a) Mr. Ranjit Rai shall deposit the entire amount of rent up to date and shall go on depositing rent from month to month without prejudice to the contentions of the respondent landlord; (b) The appellant company shall furnish bank guarantee for the total amount and rent due up to date and shall augment this guarantee periodically to safeguard all legitimate right of the landlord; or (e) The appellant company shall pay the entire amount of rent up to date and shall make further commitments monthly, under protest without prejudice to the contentions of the parties. Mr. Radha Mohan Lal, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 however, insisted that none of the aforesaid alternatives was acceptable to his client as none was in accordance with Jaw. Offer (e) could be accepted by his client only if the payment was made unconditionally. The landlord, according to him, was and not entitled to the arrears of rent of the premiles and the question of attaching conditions did not arise which were neither waranted bylaw nor acceptable to hii client. Respoident No. 1, the landlord, would be within his rights to receive the rent, he urged; and in case the relationship of landlord and tenant was not estab