https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468465 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. en-us Fri, 18 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 May 2026 18:21:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468465 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468465