( 1 ) THIS is a landlord's petition against the order passed by the learned munsiff rejecting his application tiled under S. 29 (4) of the Mysore Rent control Act, 1961. The landlord made an application on 16th April 1968 for eviction of the tenant both on the ground of non-payment or rent as well as on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for personal occupation. It was pleaded in the application that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 14th April 1965, the rent of the premises being Rs. 25 per month. An application was filed by the landlord on 10th December 1968 under S. 29 (4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act seeking an order of the Court for stopping all further proceedings and passing an order of summary eviction on the ground that the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent till the date of the said application. Objections to the said application were filed by the tenant on 3rd February 1969. Thereafter, the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 1200 on the 4th March 1969. The deposit so made by the tenant covers the rent payable in respect of the premises from 14-4-1965 to 13-4-1969. It is not disputed that the tenancy commenced on the 14th of the month. The tenant made a subsequent deposit of Rs. 50 on 26th June 1969. That amount was deposited to cover the rent for the period from 14-4-1969 to 13-6-1969. A further deposit of Rs. 50 was made on 5th August 1969 to cover the rent for the period 14-6-1969 to 13-8-1969. The learned Munsiff dismissed the application filed by the landlord under s. 29 (4) on 23rd August 1969. Hence this revision petition by the landlord. ( 2 ) SRI B. P. Holla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Munsiff was not justified in holding that the tenant has shown sufficient cause for not stopping further proceedings in the case. But Sri G. B. Raikar, the learned Counsel for the respondent maintained that on the admitted facts there was no default in the payment of rent at all and that, therefore, the tenant was not required to show cause why further proceedings should not be stopped. The first payment made during the pendency of the proceeding was on 4th March 1969. The first payment made during the pendency of the proceeding was on 4th March 1969. In view of the decision of this Court in Ayesha Biddigna Begaum v. V. V. Sheik kutty, 1968 (2) Mys. L. J. 5 it is not disputed that the tenant was not required to explain the delay in the first payment made during the pendency of these proceedings. As already mentioned, the deposit made on 4th March 1969 covers the rent payable up to 13th April 1969. It is, therefore, clear that the tenant has really paid one month's rent in advance. Sri Holla while not disputing that the default in payment of rent till 4th March 1969 cannot be taken into consideration for making an order under S. 29, maintained that as the tenant committed further defaults in payment of rent that accrued due during the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord was entitled to an order in his favour under S. 29 (4) of the Mysore Rent Control Act. ( 3 ) THE question for consideration, therefore, is as to whether in spite of the deposits made by the tenant on 26th June 1969 and 5th August 1969, it can be said that the tenant committed default in payment of rent accruing due during the pendency of the proceedings subsequent to the making of the first deposit in the Court on 4th March 1969. As already mentioned, the tenant did pay rent up to 13-4-1969 on 4th March 1969 itself. The amount deposited by the tenant on 26th June 1969 covers the rent for the period 14-4-1969 to 13-6-1969. Sri Raikar maintains that the amount deposited on 26th June 1969 was well within time and, therefore, his client has not committed any default. In support of his contention, Sri Raikar relied upon Rule 9 of the Mysore Rent Control Rules 1961 which reads as follows:"9 (1) The time within which a deposit of rent under sub-sec. (1) of S. 29, may be made shall be 15 days of the last date fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the landlord for payment of the rent or in the absence of such agreement. 15 days from the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. (1) of S. 29, may be made shall be 15 days of the last date fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the landlord for payment of the rent or in the absence of such agreement. 15 days from the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. "the first part of Rule 9 (1) covers cases where there is an agreement of tenancy fixing the last date for payment of rent. Sri Raikar maintains that no last date was fixed in the agreement of tenancy for payment of the rent. The landlord has not stated either in the application under S. 21 or in his application under S. 29 that there is an agreement of tenancy fixing the last date for payment of rent. It is, therefore, clear that the first part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 does not apply to the facts of this case. ( 4 ) THE question for consideration is as to whether the tenant has committed default by not paying the rent accruing due during the pendency of the proceedings within the meaning of the latter part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9. The latter part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 comes into operation only in the absence of an agreement of tenancy fixing the last date for payment of rent. It provides that in the absence of an agreement, rent shall be payable within 15 days from the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. Therefore a tenant can pay rent within one and half months' time from the last date of the month for which the rent is payable. ( 5 ) IN regard to the payment made on 26th June 1969, we are concerned with the period from 14-4-1969 to 13-6-1969. The deposit covers the rent for two months. The first month for which the rent is paid is from 14-4-1969 to 13-5-1969. The last date of the month next following that for which the rent was payable was, therefore, 13th June 1969. The tenant was, therefore, entitled to pay rent for that month till 28th of June 1969. But as already mentioned, the tenant has deposited the rent on 26th June 1969 itself. The last date of the month next following that for which the rent was payable was, therefore, 13th June 1969. The tenant was, therefore, entitled to pay rent for that month till 28th of June 1969. But as already mentioned, the tenant has deposited the rent on 26th June 1969 itself. Therefore, it is clear that there was no default at all committed by the tenant in regard to the month 14-4-1969 to 13-5-1969. ( 6 ) SO far as the next month is concerned, the rent has been paid well within time. Similarly is the position in regard to the next deposit made on 5th August 1969. On that day, the tenant paid Rs. 50 which covers the period 14-6-1969 to 13-8-1969. Though the tenant was entitled to pay rent for the month 14-6-1969 to 13-7-1969 on or before 28th August 1969, he made the deposit on 5th August 1969. The payment, therefore, is well within time. The payment of rent for the period 14-7-1969 to 13-8-1969 is well within time, the rent having been paid on 5th August 1969. It is, therefore, clear that the tenant has not committed any default whatsoever in regard to the rent due from him till 13th August 1969. Therefore, the tenant was not required to show cause as to why further proceedings should not be stopped. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .