On the restoration of a petition for eviction (which has been dismissed in default) either by the Controller or by the appellate Tribunal, the interlocutory orders passed before the dismissal of the petition under section 15 (2) of the Act would revive and the proceedings would commence from the stage at which they were pending before the dismissal.

( 1 ) THIS S. A. O. has been filed by the legal representatives of the tenant against appellate order of Rent Control Tribunal dt. 23. 1. 73 by which appeal has been dismissed and order of Additional Controller dt. 24. 9. 70 striking off the defence of the tenant under sub-section (7) section 15 of the Act has been affirmed.

( 2 ) THE premises in dispute are situate in 60, Daryaganj, Delhi, and were let out on a rent of Rs. 100. 00 per month. On 16th March, 1964 the respondent landlady instituted a petition against Kundan Lal tenant, (the predecessor in-interest of the appellants) on the ground of unlawful subletting being specified in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. On 23rd August, 1965 the respondent landlady filed an application under Section 15 (2) of the Act praying for an order to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. On 24th September, 1965 the Controller passed the requisite order under section 15 (2) of the Act. praying for an order to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent. On 24th September, 1965 the Controller passed the requisite order under section 15 (2) of the Act. This order was passed againt the legal representatives of the tenant who are appellants before me. It directed them to pay or deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month calculated from 1st March, 1964 within a perion of one month and thereafter continue to pay monthly rent at the said rate within 15 days of its becoming due. It is not disputed that the appellants deposited the rent for some time in compliance with the said order.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, on 17th February, 1966 the main petition for eviction was dismissed in default of appearance of the respondent landlady and an application filed for restoration was dismissed by the Additional Controller. Feeling aggrieved, the landlady filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and by order dated 5th February, 1969 the appeal was allowed and the main petition for eviction was restored to its original number and directed to be heard according to law.

( 4 ) THE application for striking off the defence, which has given rise to the present appeal was filed by the respondent land lady on 18th February, 1970 on the allegation that the appellants had committed default in payment of rent for months of December, 1969 and January, 1970 and their defence be struck off. Mr. Jaspal Singh. A. C. found that the rent for the month of April, 1970 had also not been paid and so by order dated 24th September, 1970 he struck off the defence of the appellants under Section 15 (7) of the Act. An appeal against the same has been dismissed by the order assailed before me.

( 5 ) THE material facts of the case have not been disputed before me. A question of law of some importance has been raised by Mr. Bhargava, counsel for the appellants. It is this : On the dismissal of the main petition for eviction in default of appearance on 17th February, 1966 the interlocutory order dated 25th September, 1965 passed under Section 15 (2) of the Act had lapsed and that the same did not revive on the restoration of the petition (on 5th February, 1969) and that it was incumbent on the Controller to pass another order under Section 15 (2) of the Act if he was so pleased; and since the previous order was not in operation, the appellant tenants had not committed any default and consequeently the order striking off defence was without jurisdiction. This submission has not prevailed with the Rent Control Tribunal, but it has been reiterated in the appeal before me.

( 6 ) I have examined the matter carefully and am of the view that there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Bhargava, counsel for the appellants. The procedure prescribed for trial of the eviction petition before the Controller has been laid down by section 37 of the Act and he has been directed to follow as far as may be the practice and procedure of a court of small causes, includi