Interlocutory rent deposit orders may proceed despite unproved set-off pleas and an income-tax notice that is not an absolute bar.

An interlocutory deposit order under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 may be made on the material then available after hearing the parties, because the order is preliminary and does not finally decide the tenant's defence. A tenant cannot resist deposit by advancing an unproved set-off or adjustment plea, particularly where the alleged adjustment is unsupported by evidence. A notice under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 does not create an absolute bar to compliance, since the tenant may object if the money is not held for the assessee and the Controller may protect against wrongful disbursement pending tax clearance.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 directing deposit of arrears of rent can be made at an interlocutory stage on the basis of the material then available, and whether a notice under section 46(5A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 prevents the tenant from depositing the rent.

Analysis: Section 15(1) requires the Controller, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, to direct payment or deposit of rent where default is shown. The scheme of section 15, including sub-sections (3), (6) and (7), shows that the deposit order is preliminary and does not finally determine the tenant's substantive defence. The Controller was therefore entitled to act on the material before him and to consider whether the plea of adjustment against professional fees was genuine. On the facts, that plea was found to be an afterthought and unsupported by proof. The income-tax notice did not create an absolute bar, because the tenant could object on the ground that he did not hold money for or on account of the assessee, and the Controller had also protected the tenant against any wrongful payment by directing that the amount would not be disbursed until the tax clearance issue was resolved.

Conclusion: The order directing deposit of arrears of rent was valid, and the notice under section 46(5A) did not prevent compliance; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant cannot resist an interlocutory deposit order under section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by relying on an unproved set-off plea or by treating a section 46(5A) notice as an absolute prohibition, where the Controller has given a hearing and the statutory scheme permits interim deposit pending adjudication of the defence.

---