(1) IN spite of service of notice the respondent does not appear. (2) SPECIAL leave granted. (3) THE appellant-landlord which is a trust applied to the Controller under the provisions of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, for permission to determine the tenancy of the response dent, and on 20/04/1977, the Controller rejected the application and on appeal the Resident Deputy Collector by order dated 3/05/1982 granted permission under clause 13(3(ii) of the Order. Notice of termination was given. The tenant challenged the appellate order granting permission by filing a writ petition before the High court in 1983. (4) A suit for eviction was filed on the basis of termination and was decreed. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 9/10/1987 and the learned Judge set aside the appellate order granting permission and remanded the matter for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. This order of the High court has been assailed by special leave. (5) ADMITTEDLY the tenant was in arrears and in his deposition dated 23/11/1976, before the Controller he had stated: THERE is no agreement in writing. As per oral agreement the repairs are to be deducted from the rent. If the landlord repairs the house I am willing to pay the arrears of rent. Approximately Rs. 500.00 to Rs. 600.00 should be the arrears of rent. I have not paid the rent from 6 to 7 years... Clause 16 of the Order deals with repairs and a scheme has been provided as to how notice has to be given to the landlord by the tenant and in the event of the landlord not undertaking the repairs the Controller has to be moved for a direction. Admittedly, no steps have been taken in terms of clause 16 and the tenant had withheld payment of rent for a number of years. The High court did not refer to clause 16 nor it did examine the material facts of the case on the basis of the statement of the tenant with reference to the requirements of law. We are satisfied that no case for interference by the High court had been made out; much less was there any justification for a remand at such a distant point of time. We are satisfied that no case for interference by the High court had been made out; much less was there any justification for a remand at such a distant point of time. The High court should have taken note of the fact that the tenant had not obtained any order of stay and the civil litigation had proceeded. (6) WE allow the appeal set aside the order of the High court and hold that the permission granted by the Controller shall be sustained. (7) AS the respondent has not appeared there shall be no order for costs.