Tenant cannot unilaterally suspend rent after partial fire damage while retaining possession under a lawful deposit order.

An appeal under the Delhi Rent Control Act remained maintainable despite a later eviction order, because the later order was dependent on the earlier order and could be adjusted if the earlier challenge succeeded. Where tenants retained possession after partial destruction of the premises by fire, they could not unilaterally suspend rent or disregard a lawful deposit order; the proper course was to seek modification or elect to treat the lease as void under the Transfer of Property Act. The tenant's non-compliance with the deposit direction amounted to default, justifying restoration of the landlord's application and striking out of the defence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 became infructuous because a final order of eviction was passed during its pendency; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the Controller's order condoning the tenant's default and refusing to permit unilateral suspension of rent after partial destruction of the premises by fire.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 became infructuous because a final order of eviction was passed during its pendency.

Analysis: An appeal filed against an order under section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 remained competent notwithstanding a later eviction order passed in the same proceedings. The later order was subordinate to and dependent upon the earlier order, and if the appeal against the earlier order succeeded, consequential modification of the later order would follow. The passing of the final eviction order did not bar adjudication of the pending appeal.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the Controller's order condoning the tenant's default and refusing to permit unilateral suspension of rent after partial destruction of the premises by fire.

Analysis: Under section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Controller's discretion to condone default had to be exercised according to law. After the fire, the tenants neither obtained a modification of the deposit order nor surrendered possession or elected to treat the lease as void. Under section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the lessee's remedy on destruction of the premises is to treat the lease as void; so long as possession is retained, rent cannot be unilaterally suspended. The tenants' failure to comply with the deposit order therefore constituted breach justifying striking out of the defence.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in restoring the application under section 15(7) and striking out the defence; the challenge to that order failed.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order stood affirmed in favour of the landlord.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant who retains possession after destruction of part of the demised premises cannot unilaterally suspend rent or ignore a lawful deposit order; default under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 may justify striking out the defence.

---