JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The tenant is the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Opposite parties 1 to 7 are the heirs of the original landlord late Bairagi Ojha. They filed an application u/s 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for eviction of the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 50/- and had not paid rent for more than 3 year's and that the house was required for their personal use. The reliefs sought were (i) for eviction of the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Act and, (ii) for fixation fair rent u/s 5 of the Act. Amongst other defences, which are not relevant, the Petitioner took the plea that he was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- and not Rs. 50/-. 2. The House Rent Controller, Cuttack, held that the landlords required the house for their use bona-fide, and accordingly directed the Petitioner to deliver possession of the house within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, who allowed the appeal and passed the following order: The Appellant is allowed to continue occupation of the suit house on payment of all the arrear rental dues within 15 days from the date of order on the following terms, failing which the Appellant will be liable to be evicted u/s 7 of the Horse Rent Control Act. From 1-9-58 to 15-5-62 at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. And From 16-5-62 to up-to-date and onwards at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. Admittedly, in accordance with this order the Petitioner deposited rent on 2-9-1963 within the stipulated period. 3. Mr. Mohapatra contends that the order of the Additional District Magistrate directing payment of Rs. 60/- per month as rent from 16-5-1962 up-to-date and onwards is an error apparent on the face of the record as being contrary to his clear and positive finding that Rs. 50/- was payable as rent, and that there is no finding in this judgment that Rs. 60/- is payable. This contention is correct. In the judgment, the learned Additional District Magistrate observed: As stated by the witnesses of both the parties the present rent of the suit house will be not less than Rs. 50/- was payable as rent, and that there is no finding in this judgment that Rs. 60/- is payable. This contention is correct. In the judgment, the learned Additional District Magistrate observed: As stated by the witnesses of both the parties the present rent of the suit house will be not less than Rs. 50/- since this suit house is situated in the main road leading to Chaudhury Bazar. As it appears in view of the present rise in the cost of living and Municipal taxes etc. the Respondents have right to claim the rental of about Rs. 50/- from the Appellant. There is no finding any where in the judgment that the fair rent would be Rs. 60/- per month from 16-5-1962 onwards. The direction given by the learned Additional District Magistrate that Rs. 60/- is payable as rent from 16-5-1962 onwards is an error apparent on the face of the record and is not supported by any finding. We accordingly set aside that portion of the order and direct that from 16-5-1962 onwards the Petitioner is to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. 4. Mr. Mohanty argues that the learned Additional District Magistrate determined the rent at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month from 16-5-1962 onwards on the basis that there was an agreement between late Bairagi Ojha and the Petitioner for payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and that Rs. 60/- was fixed as the rent per month although the landlords claimed Rs. 75/- per month. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not an appellate Court and cannot go into evidence for coming to a different finding. The fact remains that the ultimate order of the learned Additional District Magistrate is not supported by his finding and the order that we have passed is merely to bring the final order in conformity with the finding in the judgment. 5. Mr. Mohanty contended that the writ application was not maintainable as the Petitioner did not comply with the direction of the learned Additional District Magistrate that all arrear rental dues must be paid to opposite-parties 1 to 7 within 15 days from the date of his order, failing which the Petitioner was liable to eviction. 5. Mr. Mohanty contended that the writ application was not maintainable as the Petitioner did not comply with the direction of the learned Additional District Magistrate that all arrear rental dues must be paid to opposite-parties 1 to 7 within 15 days from the date of his order, failing which the Petitioner was liable to eviction. There is no dispute that the entire arrear due were deposited in Court on 2-9-1963 which is within 15 days from 22-8-1963, the date of order of the learned Additional District Magistrate. Mr. Mohanty contends that this amount has not been paid to the landlords personally but was deposited in Court and while so doing the Petitioner also made a prayer to the Court that the same should not be handed over to the landlords. There is no substance in this contention. The order directed payment of all arrear dues within 15 days. Depositing the entire amount in Court to the credit of the landlords is full compliance with the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate in terms and the order of eviction does not operate on the performance of the conditions imposed. The contention that the writ application is not maintainable is devoid of force. 6. In the result, the application is allowed as indicated above. The Petitioner is to pay arrears of rent from 16-5-1962 up-to-date and rent from onwards at the rate of Rs. 50/- (rupees fifty) per month. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Narasimham, C.J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed