ORDER 1. The respondent-tenant who is in occupation of the premises in question was sought to be evicted on the ground of habitual default, irregular payment and bona fide need. The petitioner who is the landlord approached the Rent Controller seeking permission for terminating the tenancy under Section 13(3)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Controller granted permission to terminate the tenancy only on the ground of habitual default and irregular payment of rent. In other words, the landlord was not given permission to terminate the tenancy on the ground of bona fide need. However, he did not file an appeal against the order of the Controller. The tenant on the other hand, appealed challenging the permission granted by the Rent Controller. 2. Pursuant to the permission granted, the landlord filed civil suit for eviction. The trial court decreed the suit but made a conditional order stating that the decree shall not be executed till the appeal preferred by the tenant is disposed of. The tenant also appealed against the decree of eviction. His appeal was dismissed. But the second appeal preferred by the tenant was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the notice of termination issued by the landlord pursuant to the order of the Rent Controller was premature since it was issued before the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Controller. The decision of the High Court has been reported as Mathew Cherian Christian v, Rajkumar Ramavatar Chourasia{1982 Mah LJ 724}. The view taken by the High Court has been assailed in Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 1989. 3. Against the judgment of the High Court, there was a review petition, but the High Court rejected it. Against the order rejecting the review petition, Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 1989 has been preferred. 4. The view taken by the High Court as to invalidity of the notice of termination of tenancy has been since overruled by a subsequent bench decision of the High Court reported in Prabhakar v. Bharat Santaji More{ AIR 1983 Bom 488 }. In our opinion, the view taken by the Division Bench in Prabhakar case{ AIR 1983 Bom 488 } is correct. In our opinion, the view taken by the Division Bench in Prabhakar case{ AIR 1983 Bom 488 } is correct. Mere filing of the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller granting permission to terminate the tenancy by itself will not operate as a stay to keep in abeyance the order of the Rent Controller. 5. We do not however, consider that for that reason alone, the landlord is entitled to have the decree for eviction. The eviction sought is not on the ground of bona fide need. It is only on the ground of arrears of rent. It seems to us that the interest of justice will be better served if the tenant is asked to pay all the arrears up to date and also pay future rent at an enhanced rate with certain conditions as indicated below instead of being evicted: (i) The tenant is directed to deposit or pay the entire arrears of rent up to date within one month from today; (ii) The tenant shall pay hereafter rent at the enhanced rate of Rs 300 per month commencing from May 1990; (iii) If the tenant fails to pay the arrears of rent as directed, the decree of eviction shall stand restored without any further order to that effect; (iv) If tenant commits default in payment of rent for two consecutive months in future, it shall be open to the landlord without any fresh order or permission from the Rent Controller to seek eviction by instituting the suit. 6. With these directions Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 1989 is disposed of. 7. No order is necessary in Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 1989 and is accordingly dismissed. 8. In order to enable the tenant to pay the rent regularly, the landlord will give to the tenant his bank account number to which the tenant could deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current rent regularly. If the landlord does not give the account number, the tenant is at liberty to open an account in the local branch of any bank in the name of the landlord and deposit the arrears and future rent as stated above. The tenant could open the bank account in the name of the landlord by the strength of this order and by producing a copy before the Bank Manager to avoid other formalities and delay. 9. The tenant could open the bank account in the name of the landlord by the strength of this order and by producing a copy before the Bank Manager to avoid other formalities and delay. 9. The parties to bear their own costs. For Citation : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 175.