The tenant's defense need not be struck out under Section 15(7) before being deprived of the protection under Section 14(2) if there has been a default in compliance with the rent deposit order.

( 1 ) WHETHER a tenant can be denied the benefit of section 14 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short "the Act") for his failure to comply with the order of payment or deposit of rent passed against him under section 15 (1) of the Act without the Controller first striking out the defence of the tenant within the meaning of Section 15 (7) of the Act? - is the vexed question which has arisen for determination in the present petition.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the petition are in a narrow compass. The respondent (landlord) had filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act against the petitioner (tenant) seeking his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of tenant s default to make the payment of arrears of rent w. e. f. 5. 9. 1996 to January, 1997 and w. e. f. 5. 3. 1997 till the date of filing of the petition despite service of a notice dated 28. 1. 1999. The tenant contested the petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the petition was without any cause of action as he had paid the entire rent and was not in arrears. On 5. 11. 1999 the learned Controller passed an order under section 15 (1) of the Act directing the tenant to pay or deposit arrears of rent w. e. f. September, 1998 @rs. 1100/- per month within one month and continue to pay or deposit the future rent by 15th of each succeeding month. In compliance of the said order, the tenant deposited various sums of money towards the arrears of rent and future rent between 29. 11. 1999 to 26. 9. 2002 which deposit was not in strict compliance of the order dated 5. 11. 1999. After the trial of the petition, the learned controller recorded a finding that the tenant was in arrears of rent w. e. f. 5. 9. 1996 to January, 1997 and thereafter w. e. f. 5. 3. 1997, which he failed to pay despite the service of notice. At the time of final hearing of the matter, counsel for the landlord pointed out that the tenant did not comply with the order under section 15 (1) of the Act and, as such, the tenant was not entitled for the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act. The learned Controller after calling the report of the nazir and on its verification found that the tenant did not deposit the rent month by month strictly in terms of order dated 5. 11. 1999 passed under Section 15 (1) of the act as sometimes he deposited the rent for a period of four months and sometimes for five months and on previous occasions also there was delay on the part of the tenant in compliance of the order under Section 15 (1) of the act. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jain Motor Co. Vs. Swayam Prabha Jain, 23 (1983) DLT 66 the learned Controller held that the tenant was not entitled to benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act because of his failure to comply with the order under section 15 (1) of the Act and accordingly passed an eviction order against the tenant in respect of the suit premises.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the eviction order dated 11. 11. 2002 passed by the Controller, the tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi and the Tribunal vide an order dated 13. 3. 2002 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Controller. The Tribunal had also satisfied itself from the report of the Nazir that at least five deposits were not made by the tenant month by month as per the orders of the learned Controller which clearly indicated that the tenant did not obey the order under Section 15 (1) of the act as he has defaulted to deposit the future rent month by month on several occasions and, therefore, the conduct of the tenant amounted to willful default and disobedience of the orders which could not be condoned.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tribunal, the tenant filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 13. 3. 2003 and for dismissing the eviction petition. The petition came up for hearing before this Court on 29.