JUDGMENT

SEN J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 5th September, 1989, declining to interfere with an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30th May 1989.

3. The appellant, Smt. Kamla Devi, is the owner of Shop No.408, Pandit Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. The shop was let out to the respondent. The respondent defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant sent a demand notice on 18-5-1981 upon the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent. The respondent neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent within the period of two months after the service of the demand notice. On or about 2-8-1982, the appellant filed an eviction petition under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.1958. It was admitted in the written statement that rent was due from 1st January, 1980. On 27th January, 1984 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passed an order to the following effect :-

"I direct the respondent to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.50/- w.e.f. 1-1-1980 within one month of the passing of this order and continue to pay or deposit the subsequent rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. Case to come up for parties evidence on 18-3-1984."

4. Thereafter the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to the appellant promising to pay the arrears before expiry of the period stipulated in the order. The respondent, however, did not pay the arrears as promised. On 11th April, 1984 the appellant filed an application under sub-sec. (7) of Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for striking out the defence and to proceed with the hearing of the application on the ground that the tenant had failed to make payment or any deposit of the arrears of rent.

5. The Additional Rent Controller passed the following order :-

"Since the respondent failed to comply the order dated 27-1-1984 under Section 15(1), he was not entitled to benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act and as such he was liable to suffer straight eviction order. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of shop bearing No.408, situated at Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, as shown red in the site plan, Ex. RW 1/2."

6. On appeal, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Rent Controller to consider whether the delay in deposit of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,150/- is liable to be condoned or not before deciding whether the appellant deserves to get the benefit of Section 14(2) or has rendered himself liable to be evicted.

7. On remand, the Additional Rent Controller held, inter alia, that there was some compromise between the parties. In any case, the delay in depositing Rupees 2,150/- could not be termed as wilful, deliberate and contumacious non-compliance of order under Section 15(1) passed on 27-1-1984. The lanlord was entitled at the most to some compensation. In the premises, the Additional Rent Controller condoned the delay in depositing Rs.2,150/- by the tenant. It was held that the respondent was entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act.

8. Kamla Devi, appealed to the Tribunal. The only ground urged before the Tribunal was that there was no reason for condonation of the delay and the Additional Rent Controller should have struck out the defence of the respondent. The Tribunal held after review of the facts that the order of striking out the defence was uncalled for. The tenant was rightly given the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act, it being a case of first default.

9. Kamla Devi made a further appeal to the High Court which was dismissed.

10. Kamla Devi has now come up to this Court. It has been contended on her behalf that in view of the fact that the respondent neither took any step to deposit arrears of rent nor for extension of time within one month of the order of the Rent Controllet under Section 15 (1) of the Act, the Rent Controller did n