ORDER :

Lahoti, B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

On 13.12.1982, the respondent-landlord initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds available under Clause a, d, e and j of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act', for short).

2. There was some dispute as to the rate of rent at which rent was payable in respect of the premises. On 27.10.1983, the Trial Court passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit rent in arrears calculated @ Rs. 200/- per month from 01.09.1980 and to continue to deposit the rent falling due month by month by the 15th day of each month. The proceedings remained pending for quite sometime.

3. On 16.11.1992, an application was filed before the Rent Controller purporting to be a compromise titled as one under Order 23 Rule 3 and Section 151 of the CPC which recites that the dispute between the parties was settled and a new tenancy was created whereunder the tenancy premises as described in the deed, would be retained by the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. This compromise petition was accompanied by lease deed and affidavits. It appears that the lawyers were on strike and therefore there was no appearance by the lawyers of the parties.

4. On 23.03.1993, the landlord-respondent filed a petition disputing the factum of compromise and submitting that the documents which were filed on 16.11.1992 were the outcome of fraud and coercion and therefore were not acceptable to the landlord. By order dated 23.01.1995, the Trial Court upheld the objection preferred by the landlord and refused to take the compromise on record. This order dated 23.01.1995 was not challenged by the tenant by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority and hence the order achieved a finality.

5. On 23.03.1995, the landlord filed an application under Section 15(7) of the Act complaining of non-compliance by the tenant with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act pointing out failure on the part of the tenant in depositing the rent month by month.

6. While this application was pending, on 12.12.1995, the tenant moved an application for amendment in the written statement seeking leave of the Court to incorporate a plea that on 16.11.1992, the parties had mutually agreed on new terms of tenancy whereunder a fresh deed of lease was executed. In substance, the plea sought to be put forth by way of amendment of the written statement was the same which formed the subject matter of compromise petition dated 16.11.1992. The landlord's application under Section 15(7) of the Act was opposed by the tenant submitting that he was not depositing the rent as he was under a belief that in view of fresh terms of lease having been settled between the parties, it was no longer obligatory for him to make compliance with the order dated 27.10.1983.

7. By order dated 01.03.1996, the Trial Court rejected the application for amendment filed by the tenant and by the same order, allowed the application filed by the landlord seeking a direction for striking out the defence under Section 15(7) of the Act. The tenant preferred two appeals before the Rent Controlling Authority disputing the rejection of his application as also putting in issue that part of the order by which his defence was struck of. By order dated 06.11.1988, the Appellate Authority allowed both the appeals.

8. In between, it appears that subsequent to the passing of the order dated 01.03.1996 by the Trial Court, the tenant had, in the month of April, 1996, deposited with the Trial Court the rent in arrears for the period between October, 1992 and April, 1996. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court has allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, these appeals, by special