Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 1041 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order	 dated September 2	 1963	 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in L.P.A. No. 119 D of 1963. S.T. Desai	 J. B. Dadachanji	 O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain	 for the appellant. H.N. Sanyal	 Solicitor General of India and B. P. Maheshwari	 for the respondent. 183 January 9	 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court	 Punjab	 dated August 14	 1963	 by which an order of the Rent Controller under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act	 1958	 directing the appellant to deposit back rents at Rs. 300 per month from 1st July	 1957	 was confirmed. The High Court granted the appellant one month 's time from the date of its own order	 as the original time had already run out. The appellant is an advocate	 who is practising at Delhi. He is occupying No. 43	 Prithvi Raj Road	 New Delhi as a tenant	 and his landlord Seth Kirori Mal Luhariwala is the respondent in this appeal. The tenancy commenced on July 28	 1957	 and the memorandum of tenancy	 dated July 1	 1957	 produced in the case	 shows that the premises were taken on a monthly tent of Rs. 300. The memorandum also contains other terms which need not be mentioned here	 because they are not relevant to the present appeal. It appears that Seth Kirori Mal was in arrears in payment of his income tax	 and a sum of Rs. 39	00	000 was outstanding from him. On October 31	 1957	 the Income tax Officer Central Circle	 New Delhi	 to whom all cases of Seth Kirori Mal were transferred	 issued a notice to the appellant under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income fax Act directing him to deposit with the Income tax Officer all sums due by way of rent as also future rents. The appellant sent no reply to this notice. He had	 however	on September 29	 1957	 addressed a letter to the respondent Seth Kirori Mal. The reply of Kirori Mal	 dated October 15	 1957	 figured in the arguments a great deal	 and as it is brief	 it may be quoted here: "From TO Dated Faigarh	 the 15th October	 1957	 184 Dear Sir	 With reference to letter No. M 17 58	 dated 29th September	 1957	 1 am to write that you may please adjust six months rent of 43	 Prithviraj Road	 New Delhi	 i.e.	 Rs. 1800 (rent from 1 10 57 to 31 3 1958) towards your professional fee in part payment thereof. The balance of your fee will be paid later at the time of final settlement. Yours faithfully	 (Sd.) Paluram Dhanania	 For Kirorimal Luhariwala. Kirori Mal also sent a receipt	 dated October 16	 1957	 or the amount	 and is item 23 in the record. Kirori Mal had litigation in Calcutta. He had brought a suit against four defendants	 claiming the present property as his "absolute" and "exclusive self acquired property". The case was pending in the High Court and on May 1	 1.958	 an order was made appointing one Chakravarti as a Receiver of the properties including No. 43	 Prithvi Raj Road. Chakravarti also sent a notice on July 8	 1958	 to the appellant demanding rent already due and also as and when due. To this notice	 the appellant sent a reply on July 19	 1958. He referred to the payment of rent by adjustment towards fees for the period 1st October	 1957 to 31st March	 1958	 which was the subject of the letter above. He stated that as regards rent after 1st April	 1958	 he had no objection to pay the amount to the Receiver or any other claimant but regretted that it was not possible for him to make the payment because of the notice served upon him by the Income tax Officer. He asked the Receiver to get the notice withdrawn	 and stated that he would be glad to remit the amount of rent to him when that was done. He also raised the question of certain other expenses which he had incurred in connection with the house which he claimed he was entitled to deduct from the rent and informed that a few repairs were	 required in the house. A second letter was sent by the Official Receiver on September 5. 1959	 making another demand. In his reply	 dated September 14	 1959	 to this letter	 the appellant raised the 185 question that a sum of Rs. 23	500 was payable to him for _professional services rendered by him to Seth Kirori Mal. He stated: "You will therefore appreciate that I am entitled to adjust the rent payable against the fees due to me and the amount due to me will absorb the rent for a little over six years. Even before this Seth Kirori Mal had paid me a sum of Rs. 1800 by way of adjustment of rent towards my professional fees due. You will	 therefore	 kindly agree that the rent payable is adjustable against the professional fee due to me. " With this letter	 he enclosed a copy of a statement of fees amounting to Rs. 23	500 which he had submitted to his 	client on February 4	 1959. The Official Receiver then in formed the appellant that the party concerned had denied the claim for fees as absolutely false	 and observed in his letter that the professional fees should be the subject of some other proceeding but the rent should be paid with	out delay. He enquired if the amount of rent had been paid 'to the Income tax department in response to the notice. In his reply to this letter	 on July 5	 1960	 the appellant for the first time stated that there was an agreement between him and Seth Kirori Mal to adjust the rent towards his professional fees until the fees were fully paid. He offered to reduce the fees if Seth Kirori Mal had any objection	 but stated that till the professional fees were recouped	 no rent could be considered to be due from him. On November 25	 1960	 Seth Kirori Mal applied to the High Court at Calcutta for directions to the Official Receiver to take appropriate proceedings to realise the arrears of rent from the appellant	 and on December 19	 1960	 the High Court appointed Seth Kirori Mal receiver in the case. Seth Kirori Mal then served a notice on December 23	 1960	 on the appellant to pay the arrears of rent. To this notice	 the appellant sent a detailed reply which	 in substance	 has been his defence in the proceedings before the Rent Controller	 from which the present appeal has arisen. 186 On January 4	 1961	 Seth Kirori Mal made an application under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Rent Controller	 Delhi. In his written statement in reply to that application	 the appellant pleaded that Seth Kirori Mal had no right to recover rent from him	 inasmuch as a. notice under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income tax Act had. been issued by the Income tax Officer	 Central Circle V	 New Delhi. He pleaded that the property was in the custody of the Court	 and that inasmuch as a receiver had been appointed	 Kirori Mal had no locus stands to maintain the petition denying at the same time that Kirori Mal had informed him that he had been appointed a receiver of the property. The appellant also contended that under the Rent Control Act	 a receiver had no right to act on behalf of the landlord. He referred to the alleged agreement by which fees were	 to be recouped from rent as and when it fell due	 pointing out that on an earlier occasion a sum of Rs. 1800 was allowed to be adjusted towards fees. Some other please were raised	 but it is not necessary to refer to them because they were not raised before us. The notice to quit which the appellant alleged was not issued to him was filed in the Court of the Controller on May 17	 1961. The appellant was ordered to inspect it and to be ready for his statement as to the correctness of the notice. On the next date	 a statement of the appellant was recorded and he denied the notice and also its receipt. The case was then set down for arguments and after hearing the arguments	 the Rent Controller passed his order on July 22	 1961. The Rent Controller held that there was no proof on the file to show that the respondent had any right to make an adjustment of the rent against his professional dues. He held that the rent was not paid after March 31. With regard to the plea that a notice under section 46(5A) of the Income tax Act	 1922	 had been issued. the Rent Controller observed that the amount	 if deposited in his court	 would not be paid to Kirori Mal unless he produced a clearance certificate from the Income tax Department. The Rent Controller also said that if in the enquiry to be subsequently made	 the tenant proved that the amount of fees had to be recouped from rent. the amount would not be paid to Kirori Mal. 187 Against the decision of the Rent Controller	 the appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Controller	 observing that the plea taken by him that his professional fees were to come out of rent was an after thought and there was no evidence to prove that there was such an agreement between the parties. On other matters	 the Tribunal expressed its agreement with the Rent Controller. The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Punjab. The High Court upheld the orders so far made and pointed out that in the letter dated July 19	 1958	 to the Receiver	 the appellant had not mentioned the agreement. The High Court hi 	Id that the order made under section 15(1) of the Act was proper	 because it was an admitted fact that rent had not been paid to anybody from April 1	 1958. The High Court endorsed the view of the Tribunals below that the notice of the Income tax Officer did not come in the way of making the deposit of the rent in the office of the Rent Controller	 because the amount was not to be paid to anyone till the Rent Controller had decided who was entitled to receive it. The appeal was therefore dismissed. In this court	 emphasis is laid upon the letter of October 15	 1957	 by Kirori Mal in which there was an adjustment of Rs. 1800 towards fees. It was contended that there was an oral agreement to use the rent to pay the professional fees. The letter itself does not show that there was any such agreement. In fact it shows the contrary where it says: "The balance of your fees will be paid later at the time of final settlement. " This shows that the appellant was not entitled to retain the rent in his hands	 and the Tribunals below were justified in saying that the plea about the so called agreement was an after thought	 because till September 14	 1959	 the appel lant had not mentioned such an agreement. We are also satisfied that the plea was a mere device to retain the money and to avoid paying the rent. It must be remembered that there were as many as four claimants	 viz.	 the Income tax Officer	 the Receiver and Kirori Mal in person and Kirori 188 Mal as Receiver	 but the appellant avoided each of these in turn by pointing to the others	 and in this way continued to occupy the premises without payment of any rent. It was contended however as a matter of law that a proper opportunity ought to have been given to the appellant to prove his plea by leading evidence before ordering that the rent be deposited. Mr. section T. Desai contended that under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act	 an order for deposit of arrears of rent can only be made after the tenant has been given an opportunity of being heard	 because if the tenant makes a payment or deposit as required of him	 the landlord is entitled to take the amount of the deposit and the Controller can award such costs as he may deem fit to the landlord and the case comes to an end. By way of contrast	 he pointed out that the case proceeds if the tenant fails to make the payment or deposit as required of him. In other words	 it was contended that an order under section 15(1) for deposit of rent should only be made at the end of the case and not at an interlocutory stage. Mr. Desai contended that the present order was made at an interlocutory stage and it was wrong	 because if the tenant deposited the money	 there would be no further hearing and his plea that there was an agreement between the parties that the rent as and when it fell due should be set off against the professional fees	 would remain untried. In our opinion	 this reading is not permissible. Section 15 (omitting such parts as are unnecessary for the present purpose) reads as follows: Section 15. (1) In every proceeding for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14	 the Controller shall	 after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard	 the an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order	 an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the ten 189 ant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to conti nue to pay or deposit month by month	 by the fifteenth of each succeeding month	 a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. (3) If	 in any proceeding referred to in subsection (1) or sub section 2)	 there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant	 the Controller shall	 within fifteen days of the date of the first hearing of the proceeding	 fix an interim rent in relation to the premises to be paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub section (1) or subsection (2)	 as the case may be	 until the standard rent in relation thereto is fixed having regard to the provisions of this Act	 and the amount of arrears	 if any	 calculated on the basis of the standard rent shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within next month of the date on which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the Controller may allow in this behalf. (6) If a tenant makes payment or deposit as required by sub section (1) or sub section (3)	 no order shall be made for the recovery of possession on the ground of default in the payment of rent by the tenant but the Controller may allow such costs as he may deem fit to the. landlord. (7) If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by this section the Controller may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the application. " It will be noticed that sub section (3) also contemplates 190 payment of interim rent determined by the Controller before the entire dispute is settled. Sub section (6) puts the case under sub section (1) and sub section (3) on the same footing and makes no distinction between them. It is also possible to visualise cases in which the tenant may deposit the amount of rent under protest and claim that his defence be tried. It is not that even on the deposit of the arrears of rent in these circumstances the case would come to an end. The latter part of sub section (1) further shows that not only the arrears have to be deposited but rent as it falls due has to be deposited month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. This also shows that the order under sub section (1) is not a final order but is preliminary to the trial of the case and is made only where the rent has in fact not been paid. For the purpose of an interim order it was not necessary that there should have been a full trial. The Rent Controller had the affidavit of the appellant and he could judge whether in the circumstances of the case	 an interim order ought or ought not to be made. He came to the conclusion that the rent was not paid and the plea that it was being withheld under an agreement was an afterthought and not true. The High Court and the Rent Control Tribunal have agreed with this view of the Rent Controller and the conclusion appears to us to be sound. Once such a conclusion is reached	 it is quite manifest that the order was made after affording an opportunity to the appellant to be heard. No doubt	 the appellant is entitled to lead oral evidence in regard to the agreement he alleges	 but for that he will have an opportunity hereafter. At the moment	 he is being asked to deposit the arrears in court	 which admittedly are outstanding. Mr. Desai next contended that the notice under section 46(5A) amounted to a garnishee order and the appellant could not	 while the notice stood	 make any payment without incurring personal liability. There was no question of a personal liability because the Rent Controller had stated in his order that the amount would not be paid to anyone till the clearance certificate was obtained from the Income tax Department. The Rent Controller had informed the income tax authorities and the appellant ran no risk in depositing the arrears of rent in the circumstances. 191 It was contended that the notice under section 46(5A) amounted to an attachment of the rent in the hands of the appellant and reference was made to the provisions of section 46 sub section 5A para 5. The argument overlooks the next para which provides: "Where a person to whom a notice under this subsection is sent objects to it on the ground that the sum demanded or any part thereof is not due to the assessee or that he does not hold any money for or on account of the assessee	 then	 nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to require such person to pay any such sum or part thereof	 as the case may be	 to the Income tax Officer. " If there was an agreement between the parties and Kirori Mal was indebted for such a large amount	 the appellant could have objected on the ground that he did not hold any money for or on account of the assessee and then he would not have been required to pay any sum to the Income tax 	Officer. The appellant did nothing in the matter except to deny the payment to everyone. He paid nothing to the Income tax Officer	 declined to deposit the money before the Rent Controller and refused to recognise the demands by the Receiver and his landlord. In other words	 be was trying to take full advantage of the law	 when lie could have informed the Income tax Officer about his own position and paid the money to the Rent Controller subject to its being paid to the Income tax Department. Reference was made in this connection to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Nalinakhya Bysack and another vs Shyam Sunder Halder and others(1) in which Harries C. J. observed that before making an 	order for the deposit of the rent	 a full enquiry should be made. That was a case in which the tenant had pleaded that there was an agreement between him and the landlord that any amount spent on repairs would be set off against the rent. Harries C.J. held that without ascertaining the (1) A.I.R	 (1952) Cal. 192 truth of the plea that a large sum had been	 spent on repairs	 an order to deposit the entire arrears of rent ought not to have been made. It is quite clear that the facts there were entirely different. Payment by the landlord for repairs was a part of the tenancy agreement and rent under that tenancycould not be calculated without advertence to every term of the agreement of tenancy. Here the special agreement which is pleaded is outside the tenancy agreement and the allegation about the special agreement has been held to bean after thought and false. It is therefore difficult to apply the ruling to the present circumstances. The appeal is wholly devoid of merit and it is dismissed with costs. By the consent of parties	 a period of two months from the date of hearing (20 12 1963) was granted to the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent from 1st. April	 1958	 in the Court of the Rent Controller.

The respondent made an application against the appellant under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In reply the appellant pleaded 182 that the respondent had no right to recover rent from him as a notice under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income tax Act had been issued by the Income tax Officer	 that the respondent had no locus standi as the property was in the custody of the Court and a receiver had been appointed and that his professional fees were agreed and be adjusted towards the rent dues. The Rent Controller recorded the statement of the appellant and after hearing arguments directed the appellant under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act	 1958 to deposit back rents at Rs. 300/ per month. On appeal the decision of the Rent Controller was affirmed	 and a further appeal to the High Court also failed. The appellant contended that the order under section 15(1) for deposit of rent could only be made at the end of the case and not at an interlocutory stage. Held:(i) that the order under sub section (1) of section 15 is not a final order but is preliminary to the trial of the case and is made only wherer the rent has in fact not been paid. For the purpose of an interim order it was not necessary that there should have been a fun trial and	 that this was clear from the latter part of sub section (1) of section 15 because under it not only the arrears have to be deposited but rent as it falls due has to be deposited month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. Nalinakhya Bysack and Anr. vs Shyam Sunder Halder	 A.I.R. 	 distinguished. (ii)The notice under section 46(5A) of the Income tax Act did not amount to a garnishee order and the appellant could make payment to the rent controller without incurring personal liability because the rent controller had stated in his order that the amount would not be paid to any one till a clearance certificate was obtained from the Income tax Department.