JUDGMENT Aggrieved by orders dated 17.7.2001 and 8.10.2001 passed by Eighth Civil Judge, Class-It Gwalior, dismissing his application dated 10.7.2001 and granting time of one month to him with direction to deposit the whole amount of arrears of rent as claimed by the respondents/landlord and refusing his prayer to review that order and condone his delay in deposit of the arrears of rent, the petitioner/tenant in an eviction suit, has preferred this revision petition under section 115 of CPC. The brief facts are that the respondents' had purchased the suit premises from the previous landlord of the petitioner on 7.6.1996 and, therefore, had become the landlords in respect of these premises from 7.6.1996. The petitioner was tenant in those premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. No amount was paid by the petitioner to the respondents on account of rent, till the institution of the suit. Therefore, the respondents had filed a suit for arrears of rent as well as eviction against the petitioner. On an application of the respondents the trial Court had passed the impugned order dated 17.7.2001 directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit he whole arrears of rent within a period of one month. The petitioner had deposited only Rs. 400/- on 27.6.2001 and thereafter on 20.8.2001 the deposited an additional sum of Rs. 5,550/-. Thereafter on 25.9.2001 he deposited an additional sum of Rs. 100/-. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application under order 47 Rule 1 read with section 151 of CPC requesting for the review of the previous order dated 17.7.2001 and for condoning the delay in deposit of the rent, which refused by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 8.10.2001. During the course of arguments it was not disputed by the petitioner that the total amount deposited by him till the impugned order dated 8.10.2001 was only Rs.6,050/- and this was short of the whole arrears computed from 7.b.1996. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was liable to deposit only the arrears of rent, legally recoverable from him, which meant the arrears within the period of limitation and all such arrears were included in the amount deposited. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was liable to deposit only the arrears of rent, legally recoverable from him, which meant the arrears within the period of limitation and all such arrears were included in the amount deposited. But this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shyam v. Sheikh Nizam ( 1994 JLJ 143 ) wherein it was laid down that the tenant has to deposit even the time barred rent in case he wants to claim benefit of non-eviction. Therefore, even if the delay was to be condoned, it would be fruitless because till that date i.e. 8.10.2001, whole, arrears including those which were time barred were not deposited. There was also no legally tenable reason for review of the order dated 17.7.2001. Therefore, the impugned order dated 8. 10.2001 called for no interference. Similarly, the order dated 17.7.2001 requiring the petitioner to deposit the whole arrears including the time-barred rent was also quite in accordance with law as laid down in the said case of Shyam v. Sheikh Nizam (supra). Thus, there was no substance in this revision petition. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.