D. K. Mahajan,j. ( 1 ) THIS revisionpetition is by the landlord Haji Mohd. Din, who sued for the eviction of the tenant Abinash Chander from the premises in disputes-No. 94, Baird Road, New Delhi under section 13 (1) (k) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. XXXVIII of 1952 ). The suit was filed on the 20th of August, 1955. The relevant part of section 13 (l) (k) is in these terms. "13. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated): Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery or possession if the court is satisfied,- (k) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises, or notwithstanding previous notice has used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Improvement Trust, while giving him a lease of the land on which the permises are situate The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the 28th of June, 1957. An appeal was taken by the landlord to the Senior Subordinate Judge. The appeal was allowed on the 1st of September, 1958, and an ejectment decree under section 13 (1) (k) was passed. In the meantime on the 11th of February, 1957, the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, had come into force. The tenant, however, took the matter in revision to the High Court, but failed. He, thereafter, went up in appeal to the Supreme Court and his uppeal was also rejected by the Court. The tenant, before the Supreme Court, raised the plea that he could not be evicted in view of the provisions of the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, but that question was left open by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The landlord revived his application for execution after the decision of the Supreme Court, which had been stayed till then, and sued out execution. The landlord revived his application for execution after the decision of the Supreme Court, which had been stayed till then, and sued out execution. The tenant on the 15th of September, 1961, made on application under section 55 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It may be mentioned that the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, had ceased to exist with effect from the 11th of February, 1959, and its place had, in substance, been taken by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the relevant provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, with regard to this matter are contained in sections 53 to 55 and 57 of the aforesaid Act. Section 53 merely fixes the date on which the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, ceased to have effect. Section 54 merely saved the operation of the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, vis-a-vis the 1958 Act (The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ). Section 55 made a special provision regarding decrees affected by the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, and is in these terms :- "where any decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises to which the Delhi Tenants Temporary,profection) Act, 1956 (97 of 1956) applies is sought to be executed on the cesser of operation of that Act in relation to those permises, the Court executing the decree or order may, on the application of the person against whom the decree or order has been passed or otherwise, reopen the case and if it is satisfied that the decree or order could not have been passed if this Act had been in force on the date of the decree or order, the Court may having regard to provisions of this Act, set aside the decree or order or pass such other order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. " ( 2 ) SECTION 57 is the repeal section and is in these terms : - " (1) The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1592), m so far as it is applicable to the Union territory of Delhi, is hereby repealed. " ( 2 ) SECTION 57 is the repeal section and is in these terms : - " (1) The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1592), m so far as it is applicable to the Union territory of Delhi, is hereby repealed. (1) Notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of this Act, before any Court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force and this Act had not been passed. Provided that in any such suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises to which section 54 does not apply, the Court or other authority shall have regard to the provisions of this Act : Provided further that the provisions for appeal under the said Act shall continue in force in respect of suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder. "this application of the tenant was opposed by the landlord on various grounds. The trial Court rejected the application and directed eviction of the tenant. An appeal was taken against the decesion of the trial Court to the Senior Subordinate Judge. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge revarsed the decision of the trial Court and allowed the application. It is against this decision that the present revision. petition has been preferred under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Control Act, 1952. ( 3 ) THE first contention raised by Mr. Hardyal Hardy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is, that under section 55 the Court executing the decree can reopen the decree or order passed, if it is satisfied that the decree or order could not have been passed if this Act had been in force on the date of the decree or order. It is maintained that under the 1958-Act no decree can be passed. It is only an order for eviction that can bepassed, and, therefore, section 55 will not come into play so far as the decrees under the 1952-Act are concerned. This argument is wholly fallacious because if it is accepted, it will completely nullify the provisions of section 55 of the 1958-Act. It is only an order for eviction that can bepassed, and, therefore, section 55 will not come into play so far as the decrees under the 1952-Act are concerned. This argument is wholly fallacious because if it is accepted, it will completely nullify the provisions of section 55 of the 1958-Act. If the provisions of sections 53 to 55 and 57 are read together, there is no manner of doubt that the intention of the legislature is clear that any decree passed under the 1952-Act could be reopened at the instance of the tenant if to that decree the provisions of the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956, were applicable. In my view the lower appellate Court has come to the correct conclusion and has rightly allowed the application. ( 4 ) MR. Hardy s second contention was that the application under section 55 was barred by time, and for that purpose reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In the first place it is extremely doubtful whether Article 137 will apply to the application made under section 55 of the Act, but even if it is assumed that it does apply, the application by the tenant made on the 19th of September, 1961, is clearly within time. It may be mentioned that this contention was not advanced in either of the Courts below. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that this argument is also untenable. No other contention has been advanced before me. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons given above, this petition most fail. ( 6 ) IN the lower appellate court a contention was raised that the order under section 55 was a discretionary order and the appellate court should not have interfered in the exercise of the discretion of the trial Court, particularly when the tenant had not tendered the rent after the eviction order. Mr. Hardy did not challenge the propriety of the lower appellate court in interfering with the same in appeal. It has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant that the tenant has been tendering rent after the eviction order, but that the acceptance of rent has been refused by the landlord. Mr. Hardy did not challenge the propriety of the lower appellate court in interfering with the same in appeal. It has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant that the tenant has been tendering rent after the eviction order, but that the acceptance of rent has been refused by the landlord. However, in the interest of justice, I order that the effect to the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge will only be given after the tenant deposits the entire arrears of rent due from to him in the executing Court within two months at the agteed rate. In case there is any dispute, as to the period for which the rent is due to the landlord, that can be settled by the executing Court, and thereafter whatever is found due in excess of the amount already deposited, the same will be deposited by the tenant. In case this is not done, the revision will be allowed and the tenant s application for the benefit of section 55 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, will stand dismissed. If the rentdue is deposited, the petition for revision (C. R. 286-D/1963) will stand dismissed. In either event there will be no order as to costs.