JUDGMENT
S.C. Jain, J.
(1) The facts giving rise to this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction dated 24.2.86, against the respondent under Section 14(l)(a)(b)(c)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. As non payment of rent is one of the grounds of eviction, an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed on 7.7.87 by the Addl. Rent Controller directing the respondent to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.90.00 per month from 1.7.85 up to date within one month from the date of the order and to continue to pay or deposit the future rent month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month. In compliance with that order the respondent deposited the arrears of rent w.e f. 1.7.85 to 31.7.86 @ 90.00 p.m. on 48.87 i.e. within one month of the date of the order.
(2) The petitioner was not satisfied with the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, as according to him, the Addl. Rent Controller should have ordered to deposit the rent @ Rs. 97.00 am. and not @ Rs. 90.00 and so he filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl. Rent Controller. The Rent Control Tribunal accepted the appeal on 17.11.87 and modified the order of the Addl. Rent Controller to the extent that the respondent should pay or deposit the arrears @ 97 f- p.m. instead of Rs. 90.00 . One month’s time was granted to pay or deposit in Court the difference between Rs. 97.00 and Rs.90.00 for the period 1.7.85 to 31.10.87 i.e. the difference of Rs. 7.00 per month which was deposited by the tenant on 22.3.88 i e. after about four months and on account of this delay the petitioner moved an application under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for striking out the defense of the respondent.
(3) Both the Courts below have discussed the various pleas taken by the Counsel for the parties and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Mehta v. 0m Parkash, 1980 Rlr 385 declined the request of the petitioner and observed that the default in the present case cannot be said to be contumacious or willful particularly when the entire rent has been deposited by the responpent.
(4) Aggrieved, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed
(5) According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner arrears were stated to have been deposited on 22.3.88. The amended order u/Sec. 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is dated 17.11.87. This deposit was made more than 4 months after the date of the order and more than one and half month after the petitioner filed an application on 4.2.88 under Section 15(7). Besides this, the respondent also committed default even thereafter. Rent for June, 91 was deposited on 26.7.91 (delay of Ii days), rent for July was deposited on 2.9.91 (28 days) rent for August was not deposited till October 14 (delay of one month). According to the learned Counsel, the Courts below should have exercised their discretion judicially in favor of the petitioner by striking out the defense of the respondent tenant. 6 As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, I am not agreeable with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(6) Both the Courts below have exercised their discretion judicially while disallowing the request of the petitioner for striking out the defense of the respondent. The respondent deposited the arrears @ Rs. 90.00 per month within the time granted by the Addl. Rent Controller. There is delay in deposit of difference @ Rs. 7.00 per month as the order was modified by the Rent Control Tribunal on 17.1.87. The entire rent stood paid at the time of decision of the application under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The decisions cited by the Counsel for the petitioner do not help the petitioner in the present circumstances of the case. Every case has to be judged on its own merit. The facts of the two cases cannot be same. In this case, the delay is only for a few months and that too on account of the fact that the Rent Control Tribunal modified the order of the Addl. Rent Controller in ordering the deposit of difference @ Rs. 7.00 per month for the relevant period. The alleged subsequent defaults were not before the Rent Controller at the time of deciding the application under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the delay is not contumacious or willful. No ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the Courts below have taken correct and judicial view while dismissing the application under Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.