B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 433 read with Section 434 ot the Companies Act filed by the petitioning creditori for the binding up of the respondent Company. ( 2 ) THE respondent had taken on rent premises being Flat No. 106, Guru Ram Das Bhawan, Ranjit Nagar Commercial Complex, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 3420. 00 exclusive of all charges. The premises were taken on rent w. e. f. 29. 6. 1983. ( 3 ) IT is alleged that the rcspondents did not pay the rent as had been agreed to by them. Consequently a petition undersection l4 (l) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed. On 4th May, 1984 an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed, directing the reipondeiit company to pay or deposit in Court the rent payable in respect of the said premises. The order under Section 15 (1) was not complied with and consequeody the offence ofibe respondent was struck offunder Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Thereafter an eviction order was passed on 13th March, 1985 and the possession of the premises was recovered by the petitioners on 18th March, 1985. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that for the period 29th June, 1983 to 18th March 1985 the total amount of rent due and payable to the petitionerg came tors 70,613. 80 After adjusting an amount of Rs 30,228. 15, which had been paid by the respondent, a sum of Rs 40,385. 65 is still outstanding. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, a notice duly ligned and dated 2nd April, 1985 was served on the respondent on 8th April, 1985, calling upon the respondent to pay the aforesaid amont due to the petitionerg. A copy of the notice has been placed on record and it is stated therein that the notice may be treated as having been issued under Section 434 of the Companies Act and on the failure of the payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioners would be comptlled to file a petition for winding up of the respondent. No reply to the said notice is stated to have been received. It is also alleged in the petition that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts and it has not even paid Rs. No reply to the said notice is stated to have been received. It is also alleged in the petition that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts and it has not even paid Rs. 950. 00 towards electricity charges. It is further averred that the respondent company also owes money to other creditors, namely, Shri NL. Anand and Smt. Kamlesh Anand to the extent of Rs. 42,014. 80. Ingtances are also given about the non-payment of debts to other persons. ( 6 ) NOTICE to show cause as to why the petition should not be admitted had been sent. No one appeared on behalf of the regpondent and the petition vai admitted and advertiged. Even after the citation bad been published no one appeared and it wag directed that the hearing be proceeded ex-parte. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the petitionerg affidavit by way of evidence has been filed. The affidavit is go Shri H. L. Narula, Petitioner No. I who is also the husband of Petitioner No. 2, Smt. Indra Narula. The allegationg contained in the petition arc reiterated in the affidavit. From the evidence on record, namely the affidavit of the petitioner, the notice dated 2nd April, 1985 sent on behalf of the petitioner, under Section 434 of the Companies Act and the game not having been replied to. as well as from the order of eviction whieh bag been pasied by the Addl. Rent Controller on 13th March, 1985, I a. satisfied that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts and has becoins commercially insolvent. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, I allow the petition and order the compulsory winding up of the respondent company. The order of winding up of the company shall bs advertised by one insertion each in "statesman" and "veer Arjun" (Hindi ). The petitioners will be entitled to costs.