The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2003 Bk., should be construed to mean that the tenant is required to deposit only the amount of rent due as arrears according to the landlord's application up to the date on which the application for ejectment is made.

Inder Dev Dua, J.

1. This revision has been referred to a larger Bench by Mehar Singh J. by his order dated 26-8-1958 because of two conflicting decisions in Gopal Mal v. Firm Dwarka Dass and Company, Civil Misc. No. 175 of 1954, decided by Mehar Singh J. on 31-1-1955 in Pepsu (AIR 1955 N.U.C. 1878) and in Jagdish Parshad v. Beni Parshad, Civil Misc. No. 159 of 1955 deckled by Bhandari C. J. on 17-5-1955 (Punj).

2. Basant Ram petitioner was a tenant of the house in question under Gurtharan Singh, Autar Singh and Gurdial Singh sons of Jowala Singh. On 2-1-1956, the landlords presented an application to the Rent Controller, Kapurthala, under Section 13 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2003 Bk., for eviction of Basant Ram tenant from the house in question on the allegations that they had let out the house to the respondent by means of a rent deeddated 13-5-1954 on rental of Rs. 15/- per month from 1-5-1954. that the tenant had failed to pay the rent from August 1954 to the end of November 1955 for which a notice had also been sent to him but without any effect; on these grounds they claimed eviction of the tenant from the house in dispute.

The tenant resisted this petition admitting the factum of lease but pleading that he had, on the first hearing deposited the entire rent due from him in Court and alleging in consequence, that on account of this deposit no question of default in payment of rent arose for the purposes of these proceedings. He also raised some other pleas but we are not concerned with them at this stage. Only two main issues were fixed for trial (1) whether the respondent has been paying rent regularly; and (2) whether the respondent has deposited the arrears of rent in the Court on the first hearing, if so what is its effect? The Rent Controller as well as the Ap- pellate Authority, following the decision of Mehar Singh J. mentioned above and which is reported in AIR 1955 N.U.C. 1878 (Pepsu). decided issue No. 2 against the tenant and granted to the landlords their prayer for eviction.

3. When the matter came up on revision, in this Court, at the instance of the tenant, Mehar Singh J. was inclined to stick to his opinion as expressed in Copal Mals case, AIR 1955 N.U.C. 1878 (PepsuJ, and to disagree with the view taken in Jagdish Pavshads case. Civil Misc. No. 159 of 1955, D/- 17-5-1955 (Punj).

4. The question for consideration before us is as to the meaning of the proviso to Clause (i) of Section 13 (2) of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance No. VIII of 2006 Bk. It may be mentioned that this proviso is exactly similar in language to the proviso to Clause (i) of Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act No. III of 1949. In Gopal Mals case, AIR 1955 N.U.C. 1878 (Pepsu), Mehar Singh J. construed the proviso in the Patiala Ordinance to mean that the deposit must consist of the entire amount due as arrears up to the date of the first hearing when the deposit is made in Court, whereas Bhandari C. J. in Jagdish Parshads case, Civil Misc. No. 159 of 1955 D/- 17-5-1955 (Punj), construed the proviso in the Punjab Act to mean that the amount to be deposited should only be the amount due as arrears according to the landlords application up to the date on which the applies-tion for ejectment is made.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the view taken in Jagdish Parshads case, Civil Misc. No. 159 of 1955, D/- 17-5-1955 (Punj) is the correct view. No other precedent or authority has been cited at the Bar and the question is really of first impression. The relevant portion of Section .13 of the Patiala Ordinance is in the following lerins :

"13 (1) *****

(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied -- (i) that the tenant has