Tenant defence cannot be struck out on repeated rent-default claims after an earlier application was not pressed.

A tenant's defence may not be struck out mechanically for non-deposit of rent under a rent control order where the surrounding circumstances make the default explainable and later regular compliance follows. The decisive point was procedural: an earlier application seeking the same relief on the same defaults had already been moved and dismissed as not pressed, so a second application on the same grounds was barred. The court also noted that the rent deposit direction under Section 15(1) imposed continuing monthly obligations, but on these facts the drastic consequence of striking out the defence was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defence of the tenants could be struck out for default in complying with the order for deposit of rent and whether a second application on the same grounds was maintainable after an earlier application for the same relief had been dismissed as not pressed.

Analysis: The order directing deposit of rent under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 created continuing monthly obligations, but the Court found that the effect of the stay of proceedings order made the tenants' non-deposit for the relevant period understandable, though the point was left open. The decisive ground was that an earlier application to strike out the defence on the same defaults had been moved, the deposited rent had been withdrawn, and that application had been dismissed as not pressed. The Court held that once relief on the same cause had been claimed and the application was not pressed, a later application on the same grounds was barred. In the peculiar facts, especially the subsequent regular deposits from December 1967 onwards, the case was not fit for striking out the defence.

Conclusion: The order striking out the defence was not restored and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A second application for the same relief on the same defaults is barred after an earlier application has been not pressed and dismissed, and striking out of defence is not justified where the subsequent conduct and surrounding circumstances do not show a case warranting that drastic consequence.

---