Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.- By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 16th December, 2009 passed by learned ARCT in appeal against the order dated 7th July, 2009 passed by Additional Rent Controller. The appeal was dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a), 14(1)(d), 14(1)(e), 14(1)(j) and (h) of Delhi Rent Control Act preferred by the landlord, an order under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was passed and the petition on other grounds was dismissed. Benefit of Section 14(2) of DRC Act was given by the trial Court. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was disposed of on 4th March, 2005 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court and the trial Court was directed to relook into the record about challan of deposit of rent. When the matter was remanded back by ARC, the petitioner could not show deposit of rent and the benefit of Section 14(2) of DRC Act was not extended to the petitioner and an order of eviction was passed by the trial Court on 2nd July, 2005. Against this order, an appeal was preferred. This appeal was accepted by learned ARCT and a cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed for late deposit of rent and the appellant was directed to deposit costs within one month. The appellant/petitioner herein failed to deposit cost imposed by learned ARCT vide order dated 23rd December, 2006 and the landlord thereafter filed an execution. Notice of this execution was served upon the petitioner herein and a report was called from Nazir about deposit of costs. The petitioner herein filed objections against execution under Order 21 Rule 58, CPC. The trial Court decided this objection petition vide order dated 26th September, 2007 and the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of costs within two days. The petitioner still did not deposit the costs within this period and deposited costs only on 31st October, 2007. An application for revival of execution was moved by respondent on 7th July, 2009. The trial Court allowed the application for revival of execution on the ground of non-payment of costs within extended period and execution was restored by the trial Court. Against this order an appeal was preferred before learned ARCT. After considering the entire facts and the pleas taken by the petitioner herein, the appellate Court observed that the appeal under Section 38 was not maintainable since an appeal under Section 38 was maintainable only on the question of law. However, the learned ARCT still considered the appeal on merits and found that the petitioner had been just flouting the orders of the Court one after another and despite condonation of delay in depositing the rent subject to costs, the costs were not deposited by the petitioner even after the orders of learned ARCT and after the orders of learned Additional Rent Controller passed while allowing objection petition. The order of learned Rent Control Tribunal for depositing of costs was made on 23rd December, 2006. The costs were deposited on 31st October, 2007. The learned Rent Controller had, giving two days more time on 26th September, 2007, but still the costs was not deposited within time. Various pleas taken by petitioner were found to be devoid of merits and the Tribunal, therefore, came to conclusion that the petitioner was negligent throughout and there was no scope of interference.

3. It is vehemently argued by learned Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was suffering only for non-payment of costs.

4. I consider that in view Section 35B of CRC, the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Section 35B reads as under:

1[35B. Costs for causing delay.

(1) If, on any date fixed for the hearing of a suit or for taking any step therein, a party to the suit-

(a) fails to take the step which he was required by or under this Code to take on that date, or

(b)