https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186542 Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 requires judicial exercise of discretion based on proven compliance with the rent deposit order. The tenant failed to prove that the alleged cheques were sent to the landlord, and the amounts claimed did not match the arrears directed to be paid. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal found the plea of compliance to be false, and no bona fide conduct or equitable basis was shown to justify indulgence. The tenant was therefore not entitled to relief against striking off the defence, and the order restoring the Rent Controller's decision was upheld. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:26:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186542 Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 requires judicial exercise of discretion based on proven compliance with the rent deposit order. The tenant failed to prove that the alleged cheques were sent to the landlord, and the amounts claimed did not match the arrears directed to be paid. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal found the plea of compliance to be false, and no bona fide conduct or equitable basis was shown to justify indulgence. The tenant was therefore not entitled to relief against striking off the defence, and the order restoring the Rent Controller's decision was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186542