( 1 ) ARGUMENTS substantially similar to those raised in the present appeal by Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Learned senior Counsel for the Appellant, Mere rejected by me in c. M. (M ). 36/2001 on 19. 2. 2001. The tenant had tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500. 00 per month but had contended that since the amendment introduced in 1988 to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) Mas not retrospective, the tenant was still protected from eviction by the Delhi Rent Control act. I had expressed the opinion that "even if the question of the retrospectively of the Repeal is to be considered on the basis of the decision of the Division bench in Mrs, Nirmaljit Arora vs. Bharat Steel. Tubes ltd. . . . , AIR 1991 Delhi 160, this controversy would therefore, not arise in the facts of the present case. Without any compulsion, the tenant has tendered rent in excess of Rs. 3500. 00. This Mas not an involuntary act compelled by any decision passed under Section 15 (1 ). In my view, the matter stands fully covered by the decision rendered in D. C. Bhatia and Others vs. UOI and others, 1995 1 SCC 104 as well as parripati Chandrasekharrap and Sons vs. Alapati ja