Repeated rent control protection is not barred where the earlier benefit arose under a different repealed statute.

Protection from eviction under section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was available where the tenant complied with the deposit requirement under section 15, and the proviso barring a second benefit applied only to a prior benefit obtained under that same sub-section. A benefit earlier enjoyed under section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 was not treated as the same statutory benefit, and the saving provision in section 57(2) preserved the earlier proceeding without converting that benefit into one under the 1958 Act. The earlier protection therefore did not disentitle the tenants from claiming protection on the present deposit, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tenant who had earlier obtained the benefit of non-eviction under section 13(2) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 could again claim protection under section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 after making deposit of arrears under section 15 of the 1958 Act.

Analysis: Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act grants protection from eviction only where the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15. The proviso bars a second benefit only after the tenant has once obtained the benefit under that sub-section. The earlier benefit under section 13(2) of the 1952 Act was held not to be the same statutory benefit, and the saving provision in section 57(2) preserved pending proceedings under the 1952 Act as if that Act had continued in force. The expressions used in section 14(2) and its proviso were read as excluding a deposit made under the repealed Act from attracting the bar against a second benefit.

Conclusion: The earlier benefit under section 13(2) of the 1952 Act did not disentitle the tenants from claiming protection under section 14(2) of the 1958 Act on the present deposit; the appeals therefore failed.

---