Balanarayana Marar, J.

The short point that arises in this revision is whether a tenant is liable to deposit the entire-arrears due on the date of such deposit or whether it is sufficient to deposit the arrears of rent at the time of issue of notice as per the proviso to S.11(2)(b) in order to get an order for eviction on the ground of rent arrears vacated under S.11(2)(c) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

2, Revision petitioner is the tenant of a building owned by respondent who sought eviction on various grounds including arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on the ground of arrears of rent as well as bonafide need. The appeal preferred against that decision was dismissed. In the meantime first petitioner in the original petition died. The order for eviction was put in execution by the second petitioner. Two petitions were moved by the revision petitioner, one for getting the time for deposit extended and the other for clarification of the order and also to get the order passed under S.11 (2)(b) set aside. Both the petitions were dismissed by the Rent Control Court. The matter was taken up in appeal as R.C.A. 75/93 and R.C. A. 76/93. In R C.A. 75/93 an application was filed under ONI R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting the memorandum of appeal amended by incorporating the following grounds as additional grounds 12 to 14.

i. The Rent Controller ought to have taken judicial notice of the fact that the appellant had deposited the arrears of rent upto the date of the statutory notice sent by the respondent to the predecessor-in¬interest of the appellant and ought to have treated the order passed by the lower court under

S.11(2)(b) vacated.

ii. The Rent Controller ought to have held that in order to vacate the, order passed under S.11(2)(b) it is not necessary even to file a petition under S.11(2)(c) if the appellant has paid the arrears of rent upto the date of the notice sent by the respondent.

iii. The Rent Controller ought to have held that the" amount paid by the appellant towards the building tax is to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent.

The Appellate Authority dismissed the petition for amendment. Hence the revision.

3. Heard counsel for revision petitioner.

4. The main argument advanced by learned counsel for revision petitioner is that the liability of the tenant is only to deposit the arrears of rent as on the date of the notice issued by the landlord as per the proviso to S.11(2)(b) of the Rent Control Act. That amount having been deposited by the tenant the Rent Control Court should have vacated the order of eviction. That point having been sought to be raised in the appeal memorandum should have been allowed by the Appellate Authority, according to counsel. Attention is also drawn to the decision of this Court in P. Anil & Another v. Devaki and others (1990(1) KLJ 6111. On hearing counsel and on a consideration of the relevant provisions of law and the judicial pronouncements on this matter we are of the view that the lower Appellate Authority has not commtted any error in rejecting the request for amendment

5. Section 11(2)(b) enables the landlord to seek eviction of his tenant. If the Rent Control Court after affording a reasonable opportunity to the tenant is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is pay able an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building has to be passed. If not satisfied the Rent Control Court shall reject the application. In order to maintain an application under this sub-clause the landlord has to send a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and the petition is sustainable only if the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent tog