JUDGMENT Gentle, J. - This is a claim for possession of No. 28, Camac Street, Calcutta, of which the defendant was a tenant, together with rent at the rate of Rs. 400 a month for five months from September 1944, a total of Rs. 2000. 2. The plaintiff is, or was, a member of a Hindu joint family, of which No. 28, Camac Street was one of its properties, and consequently he was entitled to a share in the properties of the family. 3. A suit for partition was filed and during its currency a receiver was appointed who took charge of the family properties. During the time the receiver was in charge, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent. Sometimes he made his payments as long as three months after a month's rent fell due. 4. On 19th May 1944, the receiver gave notice to quit to the defendant. That notice to quit terminated and became effective at the end of June. The term of the notice to quit having expired at the end of June, rent for that month, which alone remained due, was paid in July. 5. The receiver gave another notice to quit on 26th July 1944, which terminated at the end of August, and the August rent was accepted. 6. The matters of the partition were disposed of, so far as the house in question is concerned, by the plaintiff purchasing it at an auction, held between the parties to the partition suit, of the family properties and in November 1944 this property became his own. No rent has been accepted by anyone since August. 7. On 20th December 1944, the plaintiff gave notice to quit to the defendant, to terminate the tenancy at the end of January. This termination would follow inasmuch as the tenancy had always been a monthly one. 8. Ever since September, the defendant has paid into the hands of the Controller the amount of the monthly rent as and when it became due. 9. This termination would follow inasmuch as the tenancy had always been a monthly one. 8. Ever since September, the defendant has paid into the hands of the Controller the amount of the monthly rent as and when it became due. 9. There are two issues which arise and which require decision and they are the following: (1) whether the failures by the defendant to pay his rent on the due dates, as undoubtedly was the case, were waived by the receiver subsequently accepting rent in respect of periods subsequent to those for which the failures occurred, and (2) if the failures by the defendant have not been waived, whether the present plaintiff is entitled to avail himself of the failures to pay rent by the defendant at a time when the plaintiff was not the landlord, but the receiver or some other persons. 10. Firstly, as to the question of waiver. There is a decision of this Court in Jetha Bulchand v. F.C. Grace, 26 C.W.N. 678 : (A.I.R. (10) 1923 Cal. 227) which was decided by Buckland J., under the Calcutta Rent Act, 1919, S. 11(5) which is identically worded as cl. 9(4), Calcutta House Rent Control Order 1943, to which I will refer presently. In the above case Buckland J., held that there was no waiver in circumstances similar to those in the present case and consequently a person who subsequently becomes the landlord of premises, after the tenant has failed to carry out his obligation to pay rent in proper time, is entitled to avail himself of those failures. 11. The relevant portions of the Calcutta House Rent Control Order are as follows: Clause 9. No order or decree for the recovery of possession of any house shall be taken so long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable by the order and performs the conditions of the tenancy. Sub-clause 4. No tenant shall be entitled to the benefit of this paragraph in respect of any house unless he pays the rent due by him in respect of such house to the full extent allowable by this Order by the 15th day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. 12. Sub-clause 4. No tenant shall be entitled to the benefit of this paragraph in respect of any house unless he pays the rent due by him in respect of such house to the full extent allowable by this Order by the 15th day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. 12. The provisions of this Order give to the tenant a right, which otherwise he does not possess, to remain in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has been determined. When I say it gives a tenant such right, that is the effect of the Order inasmuch as a landlord cannot obtain an order or decree for recovery of possession although he has determined the tenancy, so long as the tenant complies with the provisions of the Order. 13. It was argued by Mr. S. Chaudhuri, on behalf of the tenant, that when a tenant is in default but he makes it good by payment of arrears of rent and thereafter his rent is paid regularly, if the landlord determines the tenancy or it expires by effluxion of time, the landlord cannot recover possession inasmuch as he has accepted rent subsequent to the acts of default and cannot avail himself of those failures in order that he may overcome the prohibition in the Rent Control Order. 14. The wording of sub-cl. (4) requires attention. It provides that no tenant is entitled to the benefit of the paragraph unless he pays the rent due in respect of the house in question by the 15th of the month following that upon which the rent becomes payable. In my view, that means that the tenant must fully comply in every instance and in every respect with that requirement. Ordinarily, upon a landlord terminating a tenancy, as has been done in this case, the landlord is entitled to possession of his property. He cannot now obtain it, because the Calcutta House Rent Control Order is in his way, whilst the tenant brings himself within the provisions of the Order. This Order, to my mind, was intended to afford protection to a tenant who regularly pays his rent and carries out all the obligations of his tenancy. If a tenant does not do that, then to my mind, it is clear from cl. 9(4) that he cannot avail himself of the benefits of the Order. This Order, to my mind, was intended to afford protection to a tenant who regularly pays his rent and carries out all the obligations of his tenancy. If a tenant does not do that, then to my mind, it is clear from cl. 9(4) that he cannot avail himself of the benefits of the Order. The Control Order itself makes no reference to any waiver, as is to be found in S. 112, T.P. Act in respect of acceptance of rent subsequently and at a time when a forfeiture has been incurred; but apart from any absence of reference to waiver, to my mind it is clear that the question of waiver does not arise; the tenant must at all times comply with the Order and must at all times not fall into arrears with regard to his rent. 15. The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to avail himself of the defendant's default in regard to the payment of rent at a time prior to that when the plaintiff became the landlord. Again, one must refer to the wording of sub-cl. (4). This provides that no tenant is entitled to the benefit of the paragraph unless he pays the rent due by him in respect of such house. The benefit he is to receive is also in respect of such house. It does not provide that the landlord for the time being alone is entitled to recover possession if rent is unpaid. The definition of "landlord" in cl. 2 of the Order is as follows: Landlord means any person who is for the time being receiver or entitled to receive rent in respect of any house. It is manifest that default by a tenant is not limited in its effect and to be available only to a person who, at the time of the default, was the landlord. It is clear that for a tenant to he able to avail himself of the benefit of the Order in respect of a house the occupancy of which he desires to retain there must be at all times fulfilment of all the conditions of the tenancy, including payment of rent at the time prescribed in the order. 16. In my view, both the objections raised against an order for possession being made, fail, and the result is that the plaintiff's suit will succeed. 17. 16. In my view, both the objections raised against an order for possession being made, fail, and the result is that the plaintiff's suit will succeed. 17. There will be a decree for Rs. 2,000, together with possession within 14 days. There will also be a decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 400 a month from 1st February until the date when possession is given, together with costs.