( 1 ) ). The tenant who has obtained special leave by an order of this court dated 19-12-1991 preferred the special leave petition under the following circumstances. She became the tenant of premises bearing No. B-8, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi. The rent was initially Rs. 3,500. 00 which came to be increased to Rs. 5,000. 00 and later on to Rs. 10,000. 00. The landlady preferred a petition for eviction before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14 (1 (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for recovery of the premises. ( 2 ) ). Before the Additional Rent Controller, the plea of the tenant was since the rent was Rs. 10,000. 00 in view of Section 3 (c) of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 which barred jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in relation to premises where the rent was Rs. 10,000. 00 he would have no jurisdiction. This contention prevailed. Consequently by an order dated 15/12/1988, he held that he had no jurisdiction to try the eviction petition. Accordingly it was dismissed. Thereafter, the landlady preferred a civil suit for eviction. A writ petition was filed by the tenant in Civil Writ Petition No. 3451 of 1991 challenging the validity of the amending Act. The High court of Delhi by judgment dated 4/11/1991 dismissed the writ petition in view ofits earlier decision rendered in D. C. Bhatia v. Union of India. Challenging the correctness of the order, the special leave petition was preferred by the tenant. An order of this court dated 19-12-1991 was to the following effect:"it is submitted that in similar matters special leave has been granted and in writ petition raising similar question rule has been issued. Following the earlier orders we grant special leave but the further proceedings in the suits shall not be stayed. However decrees of ejectment, if made, shall not be executable until further orders of this court. Tag the matter with Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10753 of 1991, and CAs Nos. 2681-83 of 1988. " ( 3 ) ). It is, at this stage, the landlady has filed this interlocutory application praying for the revocation of the relief on the following grounds: (1 the tenant having non-suited the landlady by invoking the amendment had driven the landlady to file the suit. 2681-83 of 1988. " ( 3 ) ). It is, at this stage, the landlady has filed this interlocutory application praying for the revocation of the relief on the following grounds: (1 the tenant having non-suited the landlady by invoking the amendment had driven the landlady to file the suit. Where therefore the common law remedy of suit has been resorted to, the tenant cannot object in any manner whatever. Such a remedy is open to the landlady. (2 This important fact had not been disclosed to the court when seeking special leave petition. (3 Whatever it may be, the question of validity of the amendment does not arise, in these proceedings, since it is not that the landlady is anxious to prosecute the case before the Rent Controller ignoring the amendment. She has chosen to accept the decision of the Rent Controller and is now proceeding before the civil court which she is entitled to. Therefore, there is no justification for the tenant to approach this court challenging the validity of the amendment and seeking special leave. In these circumstances, special leave should be revoked. Mr. Harish Salve reiterates these grounds and states that in the petition for special leave, it is stated that the proceedings before the Rent Controller were not material. This is suppression of a fact. ( 4 ) ). In opposing this plea, the learned counsel for the tenant would state that there is no suppression at all. On the contrary, the proceedings even in relation to Section 21 had been stated in the special leave petition and all the facts are placed. Apart from this, the tenant questioned the validity of the amending Act before the High court of Delhi. That was dismissed following the earlier ruling of D. C. Bhatia v. Union of India. Therefore, there was no option left to the tenant than to approach this court by way of special leave petition which is rightly granted. The matter has to be heard on merits. ( 5 ) ). We have carefully gone through the petition. In the narration of facts we have made it clear how the tenant has attempted to non-suit the landlady before the Rent Controller taking advantage of the amendment which precludes the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller should the rent be more than Rs. 3,500. ( 5 ) ). We have carefully gone through the petition. In the narration of facts we have made it clear how the tenant has attempted to non-suit the landlady before the Rent Controller taking advantage of the amendment which precludes the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller should the rent be more than Rs. 3,500. 00 (though in this case the order of the Rent Controller mentions the rent as Rs. 5,000. 00 it has been corrected to Rs. 10,000. 00 by the Rent Controller himself ). ( 6 ) ). In that attempt, the tenant has succeeded. What then is the remedy of the landlady? Necessarily accepting the judgment she will have to go by wayof suit to which course she rightly resorted. Under these circumstances it is not open to the tenant to harp upon the validity of the amendment since the amendment does not in any manner affect her. She has to contest the suit, which she is rightly doing now. There was no need at all for her to approach the High court of Delhi questioning the validity of the Amending Act. Merely because it was dismissed it does not mean she can approach this court by special leave. If only these facts were brought to the knowledge of this court, special leave would not have been granted. The question of tagging on this matter with similar cases would not have arisen at all. There being no cause of action for the tenant to question the validity of the amending Act, the special leave obtained has been wrongly granted in this case. We have no hesitation in revoking the same. Accordingly, it is hereby revoked. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.