IMPORTANT POINT
Section 15(7) of Delhi Rent Control Act confers a discretionary power on Rent Controller to strike out defence of tenant.

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2003 of Delhi High Court by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, Ravinder Kumar Suri, under Article 227 of the Constitution was allowed, the order dated 22.5.2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal was set aside and the order dated 19.3.2001 of the Rent Controller was restored by which the defence of the appellant was struck off. By the same order the writ petition filed by the tenant-appellant was dismissed.

3. The appellant is a tenant of a commercial premises situate in Karol Bagh, New Delhi on a rental of Rs. 30/- per month. The landlord, Ravinder Kumar Suri, filed a petition for eviction of the appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") on the ground inter alia, that the appellant was in arrears of rent. The Rent Controller passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act on 20.12.1999 directing the appellant to deposit or pay to the landlord within one month the entire arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1996 and to continue to pay the future rent by 15th of each succeeding month. The landlord (respondent No.1) moved an application under Section 15(7) of the Act for striking off the defence of the appellant (tenant) on the ground that he did not comply with the order. The appellant claimed that he had complied with the order and had sent the rent by cheques but the landlord did not encash the same. The Rent Controller held that the appellant had neither paid the rent to the landlord nor had deposited the amount in court. Accordingly, he passed an order on 19.3.2001 by which the application filed by the landlord was allowed and the defence of the appellant was struck off. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 22.5.2001 with a direction to the appellant to deposit the whole arrears of rent along with penalty of the same amount within 30 days, failing which his defence shall stand struck off as directed by the Rent Controller. The landlord challenged the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court. The appellant also filed a petition for quashing of certain findings which were recorded against him by the Rent Controller. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the landlord, set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal and restored that of the Rent Controller. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.

4. In order to establish his case, the appellant placed on record a letter dated 3.1.2000 sent by its counsel to the landlord, wherein it was mentioned that the rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month w.e.f. 1.6.1996 to 31.12.1999 amounting to Rs. 930/- was being sent by cheque. The landlord seriously disputed the fact that any cheque was sent to him. The appellant did not lead any evidence whatsoever to establish that any cheque for Rs. 930/- was in fact sent to the landlord on 3.1.2000. Even otherwise, the arrears of rent which were required to be sent were Rs. 1260/- and not Rs. 930/-. The appellant also placed on record another letter dated 30.6.2000, wherein it was mentioned that rent for the period 1.2.2000 to 31.12.2000 was being sent through cheque. This was also disputed by the landlord. The appellant did not lead any evidence to establish the fact that the amount as claimed in this letter was actually sent to the landlord. The direction in the order 20.12.1999 was that the appellant shall either pay or deposit the future rent by 15th of every succeeding month. Even assuming the version of the appellant to be correct, he failed to either pay or deposit the rents for the months of January to May 2000 by the 15th day of each succeeding month. On the aforesaid facts, the Rent Controller held that the order dated 20.12.1999 had not been co