JUDGMENT Ormond, J. - In this suit a preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the Defendant that the suit does not lie in this Court by reason of paragraph 9 of the Calcutta House Rent Control and Hotels and Lodging Houses Control Order published in Notification No. 8747 L. R. of 25th June, 1943, read with the amendment published in the Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 22nd May, 1944, under Notification No. 9332 L. R. dated 19th May, 1944, the ground of that contention on behalf of the Defendant being that no permission in writing has been obtained from the Rent Controller by the Plaintiff as is required under the new paragraph 9A (2) which is to be read as inserted in the Control Order as a result of the amendment. It will be noticed that this provision of the amendment relied on by the Defendant gives only protection to the tenant when the landlord is taking proceedings for ejectment under sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph 9 (1) of the Order, that is to say, where he is claiming that he requires the premises either for building or for his own occupation: apart from the extent of discretion given to the Court in the phrase in cl. (c) " or where the landlord canshow any cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court." As against this preliminary objection it is contended for the Plaintiff that all the benefits given to the tenants under the Rent Control Order already mentioned are restricted to tenants who have paid their rent to the full extent allowable under the order within the time fixed in the contract or in the absence of any such contract, by the 15th of the next month; (that is subject to the privilege being given to the tenant, if the landlord refuses to accept rent, of allowing him to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller instead of paying it to the landlord). This restriction under this Control Order to tenants who have paid their rent in full by the proper date is contained in sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 9 of the Control Order. 2. On behalf of the Plaintiff Mr. Dutt has also referred me to two decisions of this Court, one being that of Rankin, J., as he then was, in Bithaldas Chandak v. Lalbehari Dutt 25 C. W. N. p. 967 (1921). 2. On behalf of the Plaintiff Mr. Dutt has also referred me to two decisions of this Court, one being that of Rankin, J., as he then was, in Bithaldas Chandak v. Lalbehari Dutt 25 C. W. N. p. 967 (1921). and the other decision of Buck land, J., in Jetha Bhulchand v. F. C. Grace 26 C. W. N, 678 (1622).It is true that the language of the relative statutory enactment at that time was that of the old Calcutta Rent Act which is not now in force, but a comparison of the material wording which was there being interpreted, shows that it is word for word the same as the wording of the present section in the existing current Rent Control Order. The wording itself is quite clear. Apart from that the matter appears to have been settled for this Court by these decisions as to this point. The gist of the matter is put very clearly at p. 971 of Rankin, J.'s judgment in the following passage: The Rent Act puts the tenant who complies with its conditions in much the same position as a tenant who is entitled to a term. At all events it gives him a fixity of tenure so long as the Rent Act is in force but that privilege is given to a tenant who pays his rent and performs its conditions and to no one else. 3. Similarly, in my view the present Control Order gives this privilege to tenants, protecting them against ejectment; but applies only to tenants who have paid their rents Therefore if the tenant in the present case had not at the time of filing the plaint paid rent to the extent of the proper sum, he would not, as I read the Control Order and this decision, be in a better position than he would have been if there was no Control Order at all, in a defence in an ejectment suit. * * * * * [Where the grounds put forward in the plaint entitling the Plaintiff to give the notice to quit and claim ejectment were that he wished to execute repairs and also required the premises for his own use. * * * * * [Where the grounds put forward in the plaint entitling the Plaintiff to give the notice to quit and claim ejectment were that he wished to execute repairs and also required the premises for his own use. His Lordship allowed the suit to be adjourned and give the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his plaint without further application and to proceed with his claim on the basis of non-payment of rent.]