( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 18, 1985.

( 2 ) ON April 14, 1980 Dr. P. L. Johar brought a petition for eviction of the appellant Smt. Nirmal Kapoor from the premises in dispute, i. e. a portion of property No. T-22 Green Park, New Delhi on the allegations that the said premises had been let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 175. 00 on December 1, 1970 and a sum of Rs. 2875 was due towards rent for the period ending March, 1980 which the tenant had neither paid nor tendered within two months of the. service of the notice of demand.

( 3 ) THE tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The agreed rate of rent was also not disputed. She, however, pleaded that only a sum of Rs. 2. 505. 00 was due towards rent upto March 31,1980.

( 4 ) ON October 13, 1980 the Additional Rent Controller made an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ) directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,225. 00 towards rent upto May 1980 and further arrears from 1st June, 1980 to the end of the month previous to that in which deposit is made at the rate of Rs. 175. 00 per month within one month from the order and also to deposit future rent month by month by the 15th of each following month. Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Tribunal on March 26, 1981. Second appeal was also dismissed by this court on July 16, 1981.

( 5 ) ON February 9, 1981 the landlord Dr. Johar made an application under Section 15 (7) of the Act for striking out the defce of the tenant on the ground that he had not complied with the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act. The tenant averred that the rent had been deposited in terms of the orders dated November 24, 1980 made by the Tribunal. The Additional Controller, held that though the order under Section 15 (1) had not been complied with but the default was due to bona fide mistake and the defence was not liable to be struck out and consequently dismissed the said application on April 27,1981.

( 6 ) DR. P. L. Johar, during the pendency of the petition sold the property in favour of Smt. Sushila Devi Jain and Smt. Indu Jain respondents herein, by means of a sale deed dated June 24, 1983. The vendees moved an application under Order 22 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure for being substituted in place of Dr. Johar which was allowed by the Addl. Controller on February 20,1984.

( 7 ) ON September 13, 1984 the present respondents, who had been substituted in place of Dr. Johar, moved another application under Section 15 (7 of the Act for striking out the defence of the tenant. It was alleged that the tenant had not deposited the rent after July 13, 1983 and that the defaults committed by her were wilful and contumacious.

( 8 ) THE tenant resisted the application. It was averred that the present respondent could not get the benefit of the order made under Section 15 (1) as their locus standi to get themselves substituted under Order 22 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, was under challenge before the Supreme Court. It was further averred that the appellant had moved an application for setting aside the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act which was dismissed on February 20, 1984. The appeals before the Tribunal and the High Court had also been dismissed and she was now taking steps to file Special Leave petition befora the Supreme Court. It was next pleaded that she was depositing upto date rent subject to the above pleas. She also averred that the present respondents and their predecessor-in-interest Dr. Johar had forcibly and tortuously obtained possession of a portion of the demised premises between April 22, 1983 and May 24, 1983 during her abience and had constructed a room there they had demolished the bath room, latrine and a tank through which she was getting supply of water and she was, therefore, entitled to suspend the rent.

( 9 ) LEARNED Add