Rent default and defence-striking orders remain effective despite partial destruction of premises and later eviction proceedings.

An appeal against an order striking out the defence does not become infructuous merely because a final eviction order is later passed; if the earlier order is reversed, the later order may be consequentially modified. A tenant in possession cannot unilaterally stop paying or depositing rent because part of the premises has been destroyed, since the remedy under section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act is to treat the lease as void and surrender possession. Where tenants ignored a subsisting deposit order and delayed seeking modification until after default action was initiated, the Rent Controller's condonation of default was unsustainable and interference with that exercise of discretion was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appeal against an order striking out the defence under the rent control law becomes infructuous merely because a final eviction order is later passed; (ii) whether the tenant could unilaterally suspend payment or deposit of rent after destruction of part of the premises and thereby avoid the consequences of default; (iii) whether the Rent Controller's condonation of default under the rent control provision was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal against an order striking out the defence under the rent control law becomes infructuous merely because a final eviction order is later passed.

Analysis: An appeal competent when filed does not lose its efficacy because a final order is made during its pendency. An order striking out defence is subordinate to the eviction proceedings, and success in the appeal against that order would have necessary consequences on the later eviction order. The later order can be suitably modified if the earlier order is reversed.

Conclusion: The appeal was not rendered infructuous by the subsequent eviction order.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant could unilaterally suspend payment or deposit of rent after destruction of part of the premises and thereby avoid the consequences of default.

Analysis: Under section 108(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, the lessee's remedy on destruction of the leased property is to treat the lease as void; so long as the tenant continues in possession without surrendering it, there is no unilateral right to stop rent. The obligation to comply with an order directing deposit of rent continues until altered by the court or by agreement. Partial destruction of the premises did not justify self-help suspension of rent.

Conclusion: The tenant had no unilateral right to suspend rent or ignore the deposit order.

Issue (iii): Whether the Rent Controller's condonation of default under the rent control provision was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The tenants stopped depositing rent despite the subsisting deposit order and delayed seeking modification until after the landlord moved for striking out the defence. In those circumstances, the Controller's exercise of discretion in condoning the default was not sustainable, and the Tribunal was justified in interfering.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order striking out the defence was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The tenants failed to show any ground for interference in second appeal, and the order against them remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant in possession cannot unilaterally suspend rent or disregard a subsisting order to deposit rent on the ground of destruction of part of the premises; unless the lease is treated as void and possession is surrendered, liability to comply continues, and default may justify striking out the defence.

---