JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This application for a writ of certiorari is directed against on order made by the Controller under the Orissa House Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as the ?Act?) directing payment of arrears of rent and in default thereof debarring the tenant-Petitioner from contesting the proceeding. The said order has been upheld in appeal, but in lieu of the direction regarding payment of the rent to the landlord, the appellate authority has directed the said amount to be deposited in Court. 2. The landlord instituted the proceeding (H.R.C. Case No. 17 of 1963)-for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was a defaulter. After the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 4 of 1968, was passed, the proceeding was registered afresh as a pending matter in H.R.C. Case No. 25 of 1968. On 31-10-1968, the landlord applied for a direction u/s 7(3) of the Act. The tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 458.25 towards arrears of rent after claiming adjustment under several heads in respect of the premises. The written statement was thereafter filed. on application was again made on 16-7-1971 for a direction u/s 7(3) of the Act and this time it was stated that the arrears of outstanding rent related to the period between 10-8-1961 and 16-8-1971 excepting the period between 8-5-1967 and 8-5-1970, in respect of which a money suit had been filed. On 28-1-1972, the Controller asked for a calculation sheet from the landlord to justify the claim. Thereafter, the tenant was called upon to deposit the amount. on appeal was carried against the said direction. The appellate authority reduced the claim by Rs. 800/- and directed the balance to be deposited in Court instead of being made over to the landlord. The said direction is impugned in this proceeding. 3. There is no dispute about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant nor is there any dispute that the rent of the house was Re. 1/- per day. It is contended before us that jurisdiction u/s 7(3) of the Act having once been exercised in relation to the period up to the filing of the dispute, there was no justification to entertain a second application on that score. 1/- per day. It is contended before us that jurisdiction u/s 7(3) of the Act having once been exercised in relation to the period up to the filing of the dispute, there was no justification to entertain a second application on that score. Section 7(3) of the Act is to the following effect: When on application is made for the eviction of any tenant on the grounds specified in Clause (i) of Sub-section (2), the tenant shall remit the arrear rent as admitted by him up to the date of such remittance to the landlord or deposit the same with the Controller, failing which he shall not be entitled to contest the proceeding. Mr. Rath for the Petitioner contends that on application having already been made and direction given and complied with a second application on the same score was not maintainable. The tenant has not admitted, according to Mr. Rath, that any further amount issue from him towards rent. It is true, Mr. Rath contends, that the tenant had not paid the rent for the period as claimed, but according to him, under the authority and with comment of the landlord, improvements and repairs had been undertaken and the tenant was entitled to adjustment thereof. If these adjustments are enquired into and made, nothing is due to the landlord. The question for consideration, therefore, is as to whether on the facts of such a case, it can be said that the tenant admits the arrears of rent to be due. This Court has already decided that Section 7(3) of the Act, does not stipulate on enquiry to ascertain if any rent is due. If there is no dispute regarding any tent which is already in arrears, Section 7(3) confers jurisdiction on the Controller to direct payment thereof and upon failure to also, to debar the defaulting party to contest the proceeding. As we have already said, the tenant does not admit any amount to be still due. We do not see any justification in the facts of this case for sustaining the direction as made by the Controller and upheld in appeal with modification. As we have already said, the tenant does not admit any amount to be still due. We do not see any justification in the facts of this case for sustaining the direction as made by the Controller and upheld in appeal with modification. If the tenant ultimately loses his stand, he may have to reap the consequences thereof, but the tenant cannot be directed to deposit the amount said to be due as arrears of rent without disposing of his claim for adjustment of the expenditure incurred by him with the landlord?s alleged consent for improvement and repairs to the tenanted premises. 4. We would accordingly allow this application, quash the order of the Controller as modified in appeal and require the Controller to proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order. As we have already said, this proceeding is pending for more than a decade and should not be permitted to protract further. There shall be no order as to costs. K.B. Panda J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed