Failure to deposit the entire arrears of rent within the specified time under S.12 of the Act results in the petition going uncontested and ending in an order for eviction. The deposit of arrears of rent is not a ground for review under the Code of Civil Procedure.

1. This matter came to this Court once before in CRP. No. 11 of 1969, and a learned judge of this Court allowed the revision, petition and remanded the case to the District Judge for reconsideration. Two questions were directed to be reconsidered: one, whether the petitioner made out a good ground for review under S.23(k) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act read with 0.47 R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and two, whether he established that he was not a defaulter in paying rent coming within the meaning of S.12 of the Act.

2. Pending the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, the petitioner made certain deposits towards arrears of rent. But, the entire arrears were not deposited. Under S.12 of the Act, the petitioner had to deposit the entire arrears before he could contest the petition for eviction. Since he did not deposit the entire arrears within the time allowed by 'the Rent Control Court, the court stopped all further proceedings and made an order directing the petitioner to put the respondent in possession of the building. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited all the arrears and requested the Rent Control Court to review its earlier order and reopen the proceedings, so that he might contest the petition for eviction. This the Rent Control Court disallowed; and this was confirmed in appeal and revision too. The question for me to consider is whether the order of the lower courts is right.

3. Under S.12, the petitioner is entitled to contest the petition only if he deposits the arrears of rent. If he fails to do that, he has no right to contest the petition: the result is that the petition will go uncontested and end in an order for eviction against the petitioner. This was what happened before the Rent Control Court: and this was what was provided under sub-section 3 of S.12. Once the petition came to a close - once the Rent Control Court passed an order for eviction, there was no further occasion or right for the petitioner to contest the petition for eviction on depositing the arrears of rent since there was no petition to contest. If at all he could reopen the petition, it could be only by way of review under 0.47 R.1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.23 (k) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The deposit of arrears of rent is not one of the grounds for review under 0.47 R.1 (1) of the Code, and therefore, review is not possible on that ground.

4. The counsel of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not given notice before stopping further proceedings and that was a defect in the order passed by the Rent Control Court under sub-section 3 of S.12. This is a ground which the petitioner should have raised on the previous occasion when the petitioner came to this court in revision, and is not a ground for me to consider now. This is concluded by the earlier appeal and revisions. Moreover, this is also not a ground for review as contemplated by 0.47 R.1(1) of the Code.

5. In view of this conclusion on the first question, the second question - whether the petitioner was a defaulter - does not arise.

The civil revision petition is dismissed, however, without costs.