Rent control limitation runs from the relevant direct tenancy; an interpolated deposit order cannot justify striking off a tenant's defence.

For rent-control purposes, limitation for an application to fix standard rent runs from the date of the relevant direct tenancy, not from an earlier sub-tenancy, and a later tenant is not denied the statutory remedy by reference to the prior arrangement. An interpolated or legally non-existent order directing deposit of future rent cannot support striking off a tenant's defence, because adverse consequences require a valid rent determination or interim order. Delay in challenging such an order may be condoned where the appeal was filed promptly after restoration of the proceedings and refusal would permit a nullity to operate, causing grave injustice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tenant's application for fixation of standard rent was barred by limitation under the rent control statute. (ii) Whether an interpolated and legally non-existent order directing deposit of future rent could justify striking off the tenant's defence. (iii) Whether delay in preferring the appeal against that order ought to have been condoned.

Issue (i): Whether the tenant's application for fixation of standard rent was barred by limitation under the rent control statute.

Analysis: The period prescribed for an application to fix standard rent where premises are let after the commencement of the Act runs from the date on which the premises are let to the tenant concerned. A subsequent direct tenancy, created after surrender by the original head tenant, is the relevant tenancy for computing limitation. A construction that treats the earlier sub-tenancy as the starting point would defeat the object of the rent control legislation and improperly deny a later tenant the right to question standard rent.

Conclusion: The application for fixation of standard rent was within time and the dismissal on limitation was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether an interpolated and legally non-existent order directing deposit of future rent could justify striking off the tenant's defence.

Analysis: Where the record itself was found suspicious and the purported order was treated as interpolated, the direction requiring deposit of future rent had no legal existence. The tenant could not be penalised for non-compliance with a nullity. The statutory scheme protecting tenants from eviction for non-payment of rent requires either determination of standard rent or a valid interim rent order before adverse consequences can follow.

Conclusion: The order striking off the defence could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether delay in preferring the appeal against that order ought to have been condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was directed against an order later found to be interpolated, the suit had meanwhile been dismissed and restored, and the appeal was filed promptly after restoration. In these circumstances, sufficient cause existed and refusal to condone delay would have resulted in grave injustice by allowing a non-existent order to operate against the tenant.

Conclusion: The delay should have been condoned.

Final Conclusion: The tenant succeeded on the limitation, defence-striking, and delay-condonation questions; the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For rent-control purposes, limitation for seeking fixation of standard rent runs from the commencement of the relevant direct tenancy, and an interpolated or otherwise non-existent order cannot form the basis for striking off a tenant's defence or refusing condonation where doing so would defeat statutory protection and cause miscarriage of justice.

---