The Rent Controller has the discretion to strike out a tenant's defense under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, but this discretion must be exercised judicially and with due regard to the circumstances of the case.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for short the Act, by a tenant against an order of eviction, which comes up before us. on a reference by a learned Single Judge of this Court, raises some interesting questions of law and was filed in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) ARIAN Afghan Airlines Company Limited, for short the tenant, had taken on lease the premises in dispute on March 1, 1964, from its previous owners M/s Lila Ram and Sons on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800. 00 by an unregistered agreement for a period of four years with an option of renewal. Before the petition for eviction, out of which the present appeal, arose, the landlord had sought the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment. As no notice of termination of tenancy had been given prior, to the:said petition, the same was withdrawn with permission to file afresh one. The present petition-was subsequently filed in 1969 by the present owners, for short,the landlords, and the eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent. In para (14) of the petition an averment was made that the premises had been let out on lst March, 1964 for four years (copy of the agreement enclosed)". It was further stated that "the tenancy is according to the English Calendar month terminating on the first of each month". The copy of the agreement, which was enclosed with the petition, purports to be an unregistered- agreement and was not proved at the trial of the petition. It was entered into on March 18, 1964. and provides "that this-lease shall be deemed to have come into effect as from 1st March, 1964" and "that the lease shall be for aperiod of four years commencing from 1st March, 1964". It further provides on the. expiry of the term "the lessee shall be entitled to extend the term of the. lease for a further period of four years". In para 18 (b) (b) it was averred that a notice terminating the tenancy dated 17-2-1968 was served on the respondent to vacate the premises on the expiry for the month of February, 1968". In para 18 (b) (c ). of the petition it was, however, alleged : "that the tenancy was for four years from 1-3-1964. The period of tenancy has already expired for the tenancy stands terminated by efflux of time. No notice for termination is necessary". In the "additional pleas" the factum of the filing,. and withdrawal of the earlier petition was mentioned. The notice dated February 17, 1968,: of which the copy was proved at the trial as Ex. P3, mentions the fact that the lease was for a period of four years and expired "on the 6th of February, 1968" and. that the "tenancy thus stands terminated". ,. The tenant was required to pay. the; arrears within two months from the date of the notice. In his reply to the petition, the tenant admitted the allegations container in para (1. 4) of the petition. The averments made in paras 18 (b) (b) and (c) were, however, denied by the tenant and it was alleged that no proper legal notice had been enserved on the respondent" and that. "no notice, of termination has been received by the respondent". On April 1, 1970, the Additional Rent Controller made an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act on the application of the landlords requiring the tenant to deposit the alleged arrears of rent and future rent. . The order was challenged by the tenant in appeal I and the Tribunal modified the original order with regard to the quantum of the amount to be deposited. The tenant, deposited a. sum of ,rs. 50,400. 00 within time as required by the Appellate order but I committed default in the deposit of the subsequent rent from November,j. , 1969 to April 30, 1970,the landlords thereupon sought an order order-Section 15 (7 ). of. the Actjor the striking out of the defence of the, tenant and by an order of August: 1,3, 1970, the defence of the tenant was struck out. On the same-date the Additional Rent Controller recorded the evidence of the landlords consisting of the s