( 1 ). This is an application for bringing on record the subsequent events. The application is allowed.

( 2 ). This is application for direction to defendant No. 1 that the rent of the premises occupied by defendant No. 1 bank be paid. The claim in the application is for payment of Rs. 1,02,600. 00 per month.

( 3 ). It is stated in the reply that a part of the roof had collapsed on 13. 10. 1990, and the building was sealed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee on 05. 10. 1990, by declaring it to be unsafe. Section 108 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, has remained unchanged since 1882. If the defendant/ tenant was so minded, it had the option of voiding the lease. It has not done so. So long as the lease has not been voided, the defendant bank is liable to pay the rent.

( 4 ). Mr. J. K. Seth relies on the case reported as 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 68, being S. A. O. No. 30 of 1969 (Chamber of Colour and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Trilok Chand), where it was held by this Court that a tenant cannot treat a lease as subsisting and suspend payment of rent. I am in respectful agreement.

( 5 ). The defendant bank has not voided the leaswe in question. It continues to regard itself as tenant. As a tenant it has to pay the agreed rent. I, therefore, direct the defendant to deposit the rent of Rs. l,02,600/ -per month, which has admittedly not been paid since 31. 10. 1990, in Court within ten days, as it is said by the defendant s counsel that there is no difficulty in paying the rent.

( 6 ). The sealing of the premises by the New Delhi Municipal Committee has no bearing on the matter, as the defendant bank has chosen not to void the lease. Case be listed before the Joint Registrar on 04. 08. 1994.