Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. This revision by the defendant-tenant is directed against the order by which he has been asked to pay rent-arrears as well as current-under section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that having regard to the scope of the suit, the tenant cannot be directed to deposit arrears of rent. It was stated as the suit has been filed seeking eviction on the ground of personal necessity alone, in which no claim has been made for recovery of any arrear of rent, it would be beyond the scope of the suit to issue such direction to the tenant. It was pointed out that the suit is being tried as per the procedure prescribed under Sec.14 of the act. In support of the contention reliance was placed on a decision reported in 1985 BLJR 719 . 3. I have looked into the plaint. The submission of the counsel to the effect that the plaintiff did not claim any relief regarding arrears of rent and that eviction is sought only on the ground of personal necessity appears to be correct. This, however, does not affect the correctness of the order. The suit was instituted sometime in 1986. An application under Sec.15 of the Act was made on 23-4-91, perhaps, on account of belated appearance of the defendant in the suit (the law does not permit the landlord from making any such application prior to the appearance of the tenant ). What the court meant to say, while directing the defendant "to make payment of all the arrear amounts permissible in law" was that the arrears accruing during the pendency of the suit but prior to the order should be paid. There is nothing in the order to suggest that the direction was intended to cover the period prior to the institution of the suit. The decision relied upon by the counsel has held that section 14 does not deal with recovery of arrear of rent and, therefore, where a suit for eviction is being tried under section 14, no order for deposit of arrear rent in terms of Sec.15 can be passed. However, current rent can be ordered to be deposited. The expression current rent does not mean rent payable only after the order. However, current rent can be ordered to be deposited. The expression current rent does not mean rent payable only after the order. It must mean rent payable during pendency of the suit. Otherwise, any unscrupulous tenant will delay his appearance in the suit and deprive the landlord of his rights under Sec.15, because until the tenant appears in the suit and denies the landlords claim, no order for deposit of rent under Sec.15 can be passed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner did not argue and, in my opinion, frghtly in view of the decisions of this Court, that in a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity the court is not competent to pass orders directing the tenant to deposit rent pendente lite i. e. during pendency of the suit. 5. From the revision petition it ap-pears that there is some dispute as to the payments said to have already been made towards rent during the pendency of the suit. The court below shoul have, in the circumstances, passed a clear order as to from which month and year the tenant has to pay the arrears, after making adjustment of the rent already paid. I would, accordingly, direct the court below to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed, but with the direction as mentioned above. Revision Dismissed.