SMT. KAMLA DEVIversusSH. VASDEV

                            SMT. KAMLA DEVI                                    A
                                    v.
                                SH.VASDEV

                            DECEMBER 14, 1994

         [J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.]                     B

       Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14(1) (a) and(2) and 15(1) and
(7).

     Tenant-Failure to pay rent-Eviction petition-Rent Controller's
order directing tenant to pay rent and arrears-Default committed by C
tenant-Power of Rent Controller to strike out tenant's defence-Held
provision for striking out defence contained in Section 15(7) is
discretionary and not mandatory-Such a power should not be exercised
mechanically without application of mind-Where the Rent Controller
condoned the tenant's delay in depositing the arrears of rent on the ground D
that failure was not intentional grant of benefit of section 14(2) to tenant
held justified

    Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Provisions con-
tained in Sections 12(1)(3), 13(1)(5)(6)- Corresponding provisions
contained in Sections 14(1)(2), 15(1)(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, E
1958-Held there is no material distinction between.

     In an eviction petition filed by the appellant-landlord under section
14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the Rent Controller, by its
order dated 27.1.1984, directed the respondent-tenant to deposit the
entire arrears of rent within one month of its passing the order and F
continue to pay subsequent rent month by month. On respondent's
failure to pay the arrears within the stipulated period the appellant-
landlord filed an application under section 15 (7) for striking out the
tenant's defence and the Additional Rent Controller passed an eviction
order in favour of the appellant holding that since the respondent-
tenant had failed to comply with its order dated 27.1.1984 he was not G
entitled to the benefit of section 14 (2) of the Act. On appeal the
Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller to consider
the question as to whether the delay in deposit of arrears by the
Respondent-tenant was liable to be condoned before deciding whether
he was entitled to the benefit under section 14 (2).                       H
                                      603
    604                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A        On remand, the Additional Rent Controller condoned the delay in
    depositing the arrears of rent on the ground that non-compliance with
    order dated 27.1.1984 was not intentional and accordingly held that the
    tenant was entitled to benefit under section 14 (2) of the Act. The
    appellant-landlord appealed to the Tribunal which held that it being a
    case of first default by the tenant he was rightly given the benefit of
B   Section 14 (2) of the Act. Landlord's further appeal to High Court was
    also dismissed.

         In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant-
    landlord that (i) since the respondent neither took any step to deposit
    arrears of rent nor for extension of time within one month of the order
c   of the Rent Controller under section 15 (1) of the Act, the Rent
    Controller did not have any discretionary power to condone the delay
    under section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (ii) once there is a
    failure on the part of the tenant to carry out the directions given by the
    Rent Controller under section 15(1), he is not entitled to any further
    opportunity to pay in terms of the order passed under Section 15(1)
D   and the landlord is entitled straightaway to an order for striking out
    the defence of the tenant and consequently an order for eviction of the
    tenant; and (iii) the judgment of this Court in Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth
    and General Mills Co. Ltd, (1977) 3 SCC 483 is a clear authority for. the
    proposition that the Rent Controller has no power to condone the
    failure of the tenant to pay arrears of rent as required under section 15
E
    (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act; the judgment in the case of Ram
    Murti v. Bhola Nath and Anr., (1984) 3 SCC 111, which took a contrary
    view, was wrongly decided since in that case reliance was wrongly
    placed on the judgment of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, (1980) 2
    SCC 151 in which the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh
F   Accommodation Control Act, 1961 fell for consideration.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

        HELD :1. The scheme of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 appears
    to be that a tenant cannot be evicted except on any one of the grounds
G   set out in clause (a) to (1) of Section 14(1) of the Act. If a tenant is a
    defaulter in payment of rent, even then an order for recovery of
    possession of the tenanted premises shall not be made straightaway.
    The requirement of Section 15(1) is that the Controller will make the
    order directing the defaulting tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit
    with the controller within one month of the date of the order, the
H   amount of rent in arrears and continue to pay _or deposit, month by
                               KAMLA DEVI v. VASDEV                        605

      month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding· month, a sum equivalent to      A
      the rent at that rate. If the tenant even after this order under Section
...   15(1), fails to carry out the direction of the controller, the controller
      may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed
      with the hearing of the application. [609 C to DJ

           2. It is not obligatory for the Rent Controller to strike·out the B
      defence of the tenant under section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
      if the tenant fails to make payment or deposit as directed by an order
      passed under section 15(1). Sub-section (7) of Section 15 gives a
      discretion to the Rent Controller and does not contain a mandatory
      provision for striking out the defence of the tenant against eviction. The
      Rent Controller may or may not pass an order striking out the defence. C
      The exercise of this discretion will depend upon the facts and
      circumstances of each case. If the Rent Controller is of the view that in
      the facts of a particular case the time to make payment or deposit
      pursuant to an _order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 15 should
      be extended, he may do so by passing a suitable order. Similarly, if he is D
      not satisfied about the case made out by the tenant, he may order the
      defence against eviction to be struck out. But the power to strike out
      the defence against eviction is discretionary and must not be
      mechanically exercised without any application of mind to the facts of
      the case. [611 B, 614 E to FJ
                                                                                  E
          3. There is no material distinction between the provisions of
      Section 12(1), (3) and Section 13 (1), (5) and (6) of the Madhya Pradesh
      Act and the Corresponding provisions of Section 14(1), (2) and Section
      15(1), (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The contention that Ram
      Murti's case was wrongly decided and reliance was wrongly placed in
      that case on Shyamcharan Sharma's case cannot be upheld.                  F
                                                                 [612 H, 614 DJ

          Hem Chand v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd, [1977J 3 SCC
      483 and Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash and another, [1980J 3 SCR 325,
      referred to:
                                                                                  G
           Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and another, [1984J 3 SCC 111,
      Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, [1980J 2 SCC 151, explained and
      reiterated.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9231 of
      I~~                                                                         H
    606                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A       From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.89 of the Delhi High Court in
    S.A.O. No. 98of1989.

       U.N. Bachawat, S.K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga and Seeraj Bagga, Ms. T.
    Bagga for the Appellant.

B         M.L.Verma, Rajiv Mehta and Kailash Vasdev for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          SEN, J. leave granted.

        This appeal is against an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 5th
c   September, 1989, declining to interfere with an order passed by the Rent
    Control Tribunal dated 30th May, 1989.

         The appellant, Smt. Kamla Devi, is the owner of Shop No. 408, Pandit
    Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi. The shop was let out to the
    respondent. The respondent defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant
D   sent a demand notice on 18.5.1981 upon the respondent for recovery of
    arrears of rent. The respondent neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent
    within the period of two months after the service of the demand notice. On
    or about 2.8.1982, the appellant filed an eviction petition under clause (a)
    of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It was
    admitted in the written statement that rent was due from lst January, 1980.
E   On 27th January, 1984 the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passed an
    order to the following effect:-

                   "I direct the respondent to pay or deposit the entire arrears of
                   rent@Rs.50 w.e.f. 1.1.80 within one month of the passing of
                   this order and continue to pay or deposit the subsequent rent
F                  month by month the 15th of each succeeding month. Case to
                   come up for parties evidence on 18.3.1984."

        Thereafter the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 500 to the appellant
    promising to pay the arrears before expiry of the period stipulated in the
    order. The respondent, however, did not pay the arrears as promised. On
G
    11th April, 1984 the appellant filed an application under sub-section (7) of
    Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for striking out the defence
    and to proceed with the hearing of the application on the ground that the
    tenant had failed to make payment or any deposit of the arrears of rent.

          The Additional Rent Controller passed the following order : -
H
                      KAMLA DEVI v. VASDEV [SEN, J.]                      607

              "Since the respondent failed to comply the order dated             A
              27.1.84 under Section 15(1), he was not entitled to benefit
              under Section 14(2) of the Act and as such he was liable to
              suffer straight eviction order. Accordingly, an eviction order
              is passed in favour· of the petitioner and against the
              respondent in respect of shop bearing No. 408, situated at
              Lila Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, as shown red in           B
              the site plan, Ex. RW 1/2."

     On appeal, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Rent Controller
to consider whether the delay in deposit of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.
2,150 is liable to be condoned or not before deciding whether the appellant
deserves to get the benefit of Section 14(2) or has rendered himself liable to   C
be evicted.

     On remand, the Additional Rent Controller held, inter alia, that there
was some compromise between the parties. In any case, the delay in
depositing Rs. 2,150 could not be termed as wilful, deliberate and
contumacious non-compliance of order under Section 15(1) passed on               D
27.1.1984. The landlord was entitled at most to some compensation. In the
premises, the Additional Rent Controller condoned the delay in depositing
Rs. 2, 150 by the tenant. It was held that the respondent was entitled to get
the benefit of the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act.

     Kami~ Devi, appealed to the Tribunal. The only ground urged before          E
the Tribunal was that there was no reason for condonation of the delay and
the Additional Rent Controller should have struck out the defence of the
respondent. The Tribunal held after review of the facts that the order of
striking out the defence was uncalled for. The tenant was rightly given the
benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act, it being a case of first default.           F

    Kamla Devi made a further appeal to the High Court which was
dismissed.

     Kamla Devi has now come up to this court. It has been contended on
her behalf that in view of the fact that the respondent neither took any step    G
to deposit arrears of rent nor for extension of time within one month of the
order of the Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act, the Rent
Controller did not have any discretionary power to condone the delay under
Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was obligatory for the tenant
to deposit the arrears of rent within one month from the date of passing of
the. order of th'e Rent Controller. It was contended that the provisions of      H
    608                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   Section 14(l)(a), Section 15(1) and Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control
    Act have been misconstrued and misunderstood.

        Before examining the contentions made on behalf of the appellant, it is
    necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act:-

B                 "14. Protection of tenant against eviction:-

                  (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
                  any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery
                  of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or
                  Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
c       Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the
    prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the
    premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely

                  (a) That the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of
                  the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within
D                 two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the
                  arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the
                  manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of property
                  Act, 1882 (4) of 1882;

         (2) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be
E   made..on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1),
    if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15:

         Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-
    section, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he
    again makes a default in the payment of rent of those premises for three
F
    consecutive months.

                  15. When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against
                  eviction. - ( 1) In every proceeding for the recovery of posses-
                  sion of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of
                  the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, the Controller
G
                  shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard,
                  make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or
                  deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of
                  the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it
                  was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent
H                 were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period
                        KAMLA DEVI v. VASDEV [SEN, J.]                   609

                 subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to A
               . that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to
                 pay or deposit, month by month, by t' ~ fifteenth of each
                 succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the'rent itt that rate.

                (7) If a tenant fails to make payment or deposit as required by
                this section, the Controller may order the defence against B
                eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of the
                application."

       The scheme of the Act appears to be that a tenant cannot be evicted
  except on any one of the grounds set out in clauses (a) to (I) of Section
   14(1). If a tenant is a defaulter in payment of rent, even then an order for C
  recovery of possession of the tenanted premises shall not be made
  straightaway. The requirement of Section 15(1) is that the Controller will
  make the order directing the defaulting tenant to pay to the landlord or
  deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, the
  amount of rent in arrear and continue to pay or deposit, month by month,
  by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at D
  that rate. If the tenant, even after this order under Section 15(1), fails to
  carry out the direction of the Controller, the controller may order the
  defence against eviction to be struck out and proceed with the hearing of
  the application.

       It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that once there is a E
  failure on the part of the tenant to carry out the direction given by the
  Controller under Section 15(1) of the Act, the tenant is not entitled to any
  further opportunity to pay in terms of the order passed under Section 15( l)
  and the landlord is entitled straightaway to an order for striking out the
  defence of the tenant and consequently an order for eviction of the tenant.
                                                                               F
       In support of this contention our attention was drawn to a number of
  cases which have dealt with this aspect of the matter. In the case of Hem
  Chand v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd., (1977] 3 SCC 483, the
  landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of
  the Delhi Rent Control Act on the grounds of non-payment of rent and also G
  unauthorised subletting. The Additional Rent Controller on receipt of the
  application of the landlord passed an order under section 15(1) of the Delhi
' Rent Control Act, directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within a
  month and thereafter deposit an amount equivalent to the rent month by
  month. There was an assurance on the part of the tenant to comply with the
  direction fully. The landlord made an application under Section 15(7) of the H
     610                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A   Act and prayed that the defence of the appellant against eviction be struck
    out. The tenant, thereafter, deposited the entire amount of rent due up-to-
    date. On October 15, 1965 the Additional Rent Controller struck out the
    defence of the tenant stating that on the date of the order there were arrears
    of rent. The Additional Rent Controller also passed an order of eviction on
    the ground of Subletting. He however, declined to pass any order for
B eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, because the tenant had
    already deposited the arrears of rent on the date when the defence was
    struck out. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal decided that the defence
    should not have been struck in the facts of that case and remanded the case
    for reconsideration on the point of subletting. The landlord appealed to
    Delhi High Court. The case was referred to a full Bench. The Full Bench
C held that when a tenant defaulted in making deposit or payment under Sec-
    tion 15 of the Act, the Rent Controller was bound to pass an order for
    recovery of the possession and could not refuse the landlord's prayer for
    eviction. It was further held that the Rent Controller had no right to
    condone the delay, if any, in making payment according to the
  · requirements of Section 15( 1) of the Act.
D
           On further appeal, it was held by a Bench of two Judges of this Court:

                    "While we agree with the view of the Full Bench that the
                    Controller has no power to condone the failure of the tenant
                    to pay arrears ofrent as required under Section 15 (1 ), we are
E                   satisfied that the Full Bench fell into an error in holding that
                    the right to obtain an order for recovery of possession accrue
                    to the landlord. As we have set out earlier in the event of the
                    tenant failing to comply with the order under Section 15 (1)
                    the application will have to be heard giving an opportunity to
                    the tenant if his defence is not struck out under Section 15 (7)
F                   and without hearing the tenant if his defence is struck out.
                    The Full Bench is therefore in error in allowing the
                    application of the land lord on the basis of the failure of the
                    tenant to comply with an order under Section 15 (1)."

         On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that this is a clear
G   authority for the proposition that under the provisions of the Delhi Rent
    Control Act, the Rent Controller has no power to condone the failure of the
    tenant to pay arrears of rent as required under Section 15(1) of the Delhi
    Rent Control Act. The judgment in the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath
    and another, (1984] 3 SCC 111, which took a contrary view, was wrongly
    decided by another Bench of two Judges. In that case, reliance was wrongly
H   placed on the judgment in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas,
                      KAMLA DEVI v. VASDEV [SEN, J.]                       611

[1980] 2 SCC 151, in which the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh A
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 fell for consideration.

     We are unable to uphold this contention. In our view, it is not
obligatory for the Rent Controller to strike out the defence of the tenant
under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Act, if the tenant fails to make payment or
deposit as directed by an order passed under Section 15(1 ). The language of      B
sub-section (7) of Section 15 is that 'the controller may order the defence
against eviction to be struck out'. That clearly means, the Controller, in a
given case, may not pass such an order. It must depend upon the facts of the
case and the discretion of the controller whether such a drastic order should
or should not be passed.
                                                                                  c
     The position in law, in the event of a tenant's failure to comply with an
order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act or similar
provisions of other Rent Acts, has been examined in several other decisions
of this Court. It is true that the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v.
Dharamdas, [1980] 2 SCC 151, was decided under the provisions of
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but the provisions of D
that Act relating to eviction of tenants were similar to the corresponding
provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. The relevant provisions of Madhya
Pradesh Act are : -

              "12. Restriction on eviction oftenants:
                                                                                  E
     (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other
law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil court against a tenant for
his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the
following grounds only, namely:

              (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of      F
              the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within
              two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the
              arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the
              prescribed manner.

              (3) No order for the eviction of a tenant shall be made on the G
              ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), ifthe tenant
              makes payment or deposit as required by Section 13.


              13. When tenant can get benefit of protection against
              eviction:                                                           H
    612                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A                  ( 1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted the landlord on
                   any of the ground referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall,
                   within one month of the service of writ of summons on him
                   or within such further time as the Court may, on an
                   application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the
                   Court to pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate
B                  of rent at which it was paid for which the rent may have
                   made default including the period subsequent thereto up to
                   the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or
                   payment is made; and shall thereafter continue to deposit or
                   pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month
                   a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.
c
                   (5) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-
                   section (1), or sub-section (2) no decree or order shall be
                   made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the
                   accommodation on the ground of default in the payment of
D                  rent by the tenant, but the Court may allow such costs as it
                   may deem fit to the landlord.

                   (6) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount as required
                   by this section, the Court may order the defence against
                   eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing
E                  of the suit."

        In Shyamcharan Sharma 's case (supra), a Bench of three Judges of this
    court held : -

                   "We think that Section 13 quite clearly confers a discretion,
                   on the court, to strike out or not to strike out the defence, if
F
                   default is made in deposit or payment of rent as required by
                   Section 13 (1). If the court has the discretion not to strike out
                   the defence of a tenant committing default in payment or
                   deposit as required by Section 13 (1), the court surely has the
                   further discretion to condone the default and extend the time
G                  for payment or deposit. Such a discretion is a necessary
                   implication of the discretion not to strike out the d~fence."

         On behalf of the appellant it ha~ been contended that the principles laid
    down in this case should not be extended to a case governed by the
    provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. We do not find any material
    distinction between the provisions of Section 12 ( 1), (3) and Section 13 (1 ),
H
                     KAMLA DEVI v. VASDEV [SEN, J.]                     613

(5) and (6) of the Madhya Pradesh Act and the corresponding provisions of      A
Section 14 (1), (2) and Section 15 (1), (7) of the Delhi Act. In fact this
argument was rejected in the case of Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and another,
[1984] 3 SCC 111. In that case, construing the provisions of the Delhi Act,
it was held that Section 15 (7) conferred a discretionary power on the Rent
Controller to strike out the defence of the tenant. That being the position,
the Rent Controller had, by legal implication, power to condone the default    B
on the part of the tenant in making payment or deposit of future rent or to
extend time for such period or deposit. It was held:-

              "With respect, the observations in Hem Chand case, (1977) 3
              SCC 483, expressing the view that the Rent Controller has no
              power to extend the time prescribed in Section 15( I) cannot C
              be construed to mean that he is under a statutory obligation to
              pass an order for eviction of the tenant under Section
              14(l)(a) without anything more due to the failure on his part
              to comply with the requirements of Section 15(1). The
              question would still remain as to the course to be adopted by
              the Rent Controller in such a situation in the context of D
              Section 15(7) which confers on the Rent Controller a
              discretion not to strike out the defence of the tenant in the
              event of the contingency occurring, namely, failure on the
              part of the tenant to meet with the requirements of Sec-
              tion 15(1 )."                                                   E
     In coming to this conclusion reliance was placed on the decision in the
case of.Shyamcharn Sharma 's case (supra). It was argued on behalf of the
respondent that Shyamcharan Sharma 's case (supra) was decided under the
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 which had a different
scheme altogether and had no application to a case to be decided under the F
provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This argument was repelled by
pointing out in that judgment that the scheme of the Madhya Pradesh
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was almost similar to that of the Delhi
Act with regard to the claim of the landlord for eviction of the tenant on
failure to pay rent. The only difference was that under the Madhya Pradesh
Act the landlord had to bring a suit for eviction before a civil Court under G
Section 12 (I) (a), whereas under the Delhi Act an application had to be
made before the Rent Controller under Section 14 (I) (a).

    The unreasonableness of the construction suggested by the appellant, is
well illustrated by the case of Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash and another,
[1980] 3 SCR 325. In that case, the tenant was a working woman, who had        H
    614                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              · (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   engaged an Advocate to represent her in a dispute with the landlord. She
    duly paid all the arrears of rent by cheque or in cash to her Advocate, who
    failed to deposit the amount or to pay to the landlord, as directed by the
    Rent Controller. On an application made by the landlord, the Rent
    Controller struck out the defence of the tenant under Section 15(7) of the
    Delhi Rent Control Act. A Bench of two Judges of this Court held that the
B   exercise of power of striking out the· defence under Section 15(7) was not
    imperative whenever the tenant failed to deposit or pay any amount as
    required by Section 15. The provisions contained in Section 15(7) of the
    Act were directory and not mandatory. Section 15(7) was a penal provision
    and gave the Rent Controller discretionary power in the matter of striking
c   out of the defence. It was ultimately held that the order of the Rent
    Controller striking out the defence of the tenant in the facts of that case was
    improper. The consequential order of eviction was set aside.

         We are unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that the case of
    Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath and another, [1984] 3 SCC 111, was wrongly
D   decided and reliance was wrongly placed in that case on the decision of a
    Bench of three Judges of this Court in the case of Shyamcharan Sharma v.
    Dharamdas, [1980] 2 SCC 151. In our view, sub-section (7) of Section 15
    of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 gives a discretion to the Rent
    Controller and does not contain a mandatory provision for striking out the
    defence of the tenant against eviction. The Rent Controller may or may not
E   pass an order striking out the defence. The. exercise of this discretion will
    depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the Rent
    Controller is of the view that in the facts of a particular case the time to
    make payment or deposit pursuant to an order passed under sub-section (1)
    of section 15 should be extended, he may do so by passing a suitable order.
    Similarly, if he is not satisfied about the case ·made out by the tenant, he
F
    may order the defence against eviction to be struck out. But, the power to
    strike out the defence against eviction is discretionary and must not
    mechanically exercised without any application of mind to the facts of the
    case.

          In that view of the matter, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Each party
G
    will bear it own costs.

    T.N.A.                                                       Appeal dismissed.