JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The writ application and the miscellaneous appeal were beard analogously. The Plaintiffs (Appellants) are the landlords. They obtained an order of eviction against the tenant opposite party No. 1 in the following terms as would appear from the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, dated 5-4-1962: The suit holding is no doubt in a busy business locality. As such, the fair rent fixed by the House Rent Controller is hereby modified, by fixing the house rent for the entire suit holding in possession of the opposite party at Rs. 100/- per month, with effect from 26-10.1959. The opposite party shall have to clear up all the arrear rents by 30.5-1963 at this modified rate from 26-10-1959 less the payments made by him in obedience to the decree of the Civil Court, for the period from 26-10-1959 to 31-12-1959 plus municipal taxes as per receipts filed or to be shown to the Appellants after the date of the decree. In case of further default or non-compliance of this order, the opposite party shall be bound to deliver the vacant possession to the Appellants on 30-5-1963. Hence the appeal is partly allowed. It appears that the tenant bad not been paying up the arrears of rent as directed within the stipulated period and asked for extension of time. The Additional District Magistrate, on 30-5-1963 passed an order to the following effect: The Plaintiff should have paid all the money long back to the Appellant. Let him deposit all the dues with the Nazir for payment, in case the dues are not received by 25-6-1963. 2. Mr. Mohanty, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, contends that the initial order granting time for payment of arrears of rent beyond fifteen days, was contrary to law, as also the subsequent order extending time till 25-6-1963. This contention must be upheld. 3. Section 7(1) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (31), 1958, lays down: 7(1). A landlord who seeks to evict the tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. This contention must be upheld. 3. Section 7(1) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (31), 1958, lays down: 7(1). A landlord who seeks to evict the tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered rent due from him in respect of the house within 30 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord, or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which rent is payable; *** Provided that in cases falling under Clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, be may give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender rent due from him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. The language of the proviso is plain. Both the Controller, and the appellate authority exercising power under the proviso had no power to extend the time beyond 15 days to pay up the arrears of rent, even if the finding be that the tenant was not in wilful default. This view was taken by a Bench of this Court in Savitri v. Madanlal ILR 1962 Cuttack 195. 4. On the aforesaid view, the initial order passed by the Additional District Magistrate was contrary to law and so also his subsequent order extending the time further. The initial order was however not challenged before us. Accepting that order as valid, the tenant did not comply with it in time and was liable to be evicted as directed. We accordingly quash the last order of the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, dated 30-5-1963 by issuing a writ of certiorari. 5. The miscellaneous appeal arises out of the application filed by the landlords for execution to evict the tenant. The execution was resisted on the strength of the subsequent order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 30-5-1963, extending the time till 25-6-1963. The learned Munsif rejected the execution for execution. 5. The miscellaneous appeal arises out of the application filed by the landlords for execution to evict the tenant. The execution was resisted on the strength of the subsequent order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 30-5-1963, extending the time till 25-6-1963. The learned Munsif rejected the execution for execution. An appeal against his order was taken to the Subordinate Judge who dismissed the same, holding that he had no jurisdiction to execute the order as execution is not maintainable. Far reasons already given by us, the execution is maintainable and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge must be set aside. 6. In the result, the writ application is allowed, and a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 30-5-1963. The miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside. The tenant be evicted from the disputed property and execution is to proceed. But as there is no appearance on behalf of opposite party-tenant we make no order as to costs. S.K. Ray, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed