P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THIS case has been on the Board and office wasrequired to give telephone message to Shri K. K. Chaudhary, Counsel forthe respondent and I am informed that the office has given the informationon telephone but despite waiting for Mr. K. K. Chaudhary, be has notappeared. So, I have no occasion to hear Counsel for the respondent inthis case. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 19/08/1985,of Shri M. A. Khan. Rent Control Tribunal, by which he had dismissed theappeal of the appellant brought against the order of the Rent Controllerdated 1/04/1985, by which he had struck out the defence of the appellantunder Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred toas the Act ). ( 3 ) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the respondent had broughtan eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of eviction coveredby Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act alleging that despite service of notice of demand dated November 20, 1979,claiming the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 29,700. 00 at the agreed rate ofrs. 3,300. 00per month with effect from 1/03/1979, the tenant neithertendered nor deposited the said arrears of rent within two months from theservice of notice of demand. The appellant had sent a reply to the saidnotice dated 18/01/1980, mentioning that the rent was not payable inadvance and he had sent Rs. 19. 800. 00as the rent for the period March I,197 9/12/1979 and had adjusted four months rent allegedly paidas advance rent at the time of creation of the tenancy. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the parties the Rent Controller passed an interimorder under Section 15 (1) on 20/05/1980, requiring the appellant todeposit arrears of rent for the period 1/03/1979, onward and upto daterent @ Rs. 3300. 00 per month within one month and deposit future rentmonth to month to 15th each succeeding month at the same rate. ( 5 ) IT appears that the entire arrears of rent and the up-to-date rentwere deposited by the appellant in time. The appellant came to depositmonth to month rent late by some period regarding certain months which ismentioned in the application moved by the landlord under Section 15 (7) ofthe Act on 2/12/1981. ( 5 ) IT appears that the entire arrears of rent and the up-to-date rentwere deposited by the appellant in time. The appellant came to depositmonth to month rent late by some period regarding certain months which ismentioned in the application moved by the landlord under Section 15 (7) ofthe Act on 2/12/1981. The plea taken by the appellant in responseto that application was that small delays had occurred due to inadvertenceduetorushofwork\ On September 12, 19?4, the then Rent Controllerwhile dismissing the application filed under Section 15 (7) gave a warning tothe appellant that in case there shall occur any future delay in deposit ofrent, the same would be viewed seriously. ( 6 ) THE respondent came up with another application under Section15 (7) dated 10/10/1984, in which he has averred that the appellant hadnot at all deposited the rent falling due on July 15, August 15, and 15/09/1984 and therefore, prayed for striking of the defence ofthe appellant. In reply to that application, the appellant took up the pleathat the rent for the month of June 1984 which was to be deposited on orbefore 15/07/1984. was, in fact, deposited in time and the rent for thesubsequent months of July and August 1984 was not deposited by his Manager, who was entrusted with this job and perhaps the Manager was negligentdue to rush of work in making the said deposit and as soon as before thefiling of the application under Section 15 (7) the appellant came to knowabout non-deposit of the rent of the said two months he deposited the saidrent on 1/10/1984. It appears that another application under Section15 (7) was also given while the previous application was pending alleging thatthe rent of the months of April and October 1984, were not deposited intime as there was delay of one day each in deposit of rent of said twomonths and rent of November 1984 was deposited belatedly by three days. No reply was taken by the Controller in respect of this supplementaryapplication of the landlord. It appears that the Rent Controller beingobsessed with the warning given in the order dated 12/09/1984,had not even cared to examine the merits of the grounds given by the appellant for delayed deposit of rent for the months of July and August 1984 andhe had proceeded to strike out the defence of the appellant. It appears that the Rent Controller beingobsessed with the warning given in the order dated 12/09/1984,had not even cared to examine the merits of the grounds given by the appellant for delayed deposit of rent for the months of July and August 1984 andhe had proceeded to strike out the defence of the appellant. The learnedtribunal also was swayed by the same warning which was administered tothe appellant while dismissing the application under Section 15 (7) earlier andhe also did not examine the case of the appellant on merits with regard tothe explanation furnished before the Rent Controller. ( 7 ) IT appears that in the grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunalthe appellant had come out with another plea that one of his partners waslooking after the matter of deposit of rent and had misappropriated thepartnership funds and thus, there occurred delay in deposit of the rent of thesaid two months. The Rent Control Tribunal held that the appellant hadcome out with a different version as given before the Rent Controller, hence,be was guilty of not obeying the orders of the Court and the Tribunalendorsed the order of the Rent Controller striking out the defence of theappellant. ( 8 ) IT is now well settled by the Supreme Court that the authoritiesunder the Rent Control Act have a discretion for condoning the delay whichmay occur in deposit of rent and it is not mandatory to strike out the defenceof the tenant in case certain delay occurred in deposit of rent. In thepresent case, it has to be kept in view that the entire arrears of rent and uptodate rent were deposited in time. It is true that a tenant is bound tocomply with the order made under Section 15 (1) with regard to deposit ofrent month by month. However, if the tenant commits default in deposit ofrent. that should not lead to the conclusion that the delay made by thetenant is contumacious or wilful. The explanation which may be given bythe tenant, when an application under Section 15 (7) is moved, has to beexamined on its own merits without being swayed by any warning beingadministered earlier while dismissing the previous application being undersection 15 (7 ). that should not lead to the conclusion that the delay made by thetenant is contumacious or wilful. The explanation which may be given bythe tenant, when an application under Section 15 (7) is moved, has to beexamined on its own merits without being swayed by any warning beingadministered earlier while dismissing the previous application being undersection 15 (7 ). In the present case, the warning came to be administered bythe Rent Controller only vide order dated 12/09/1984, when thedelay in respect of deposit of rent for the months of July and August hadalready occurred. So, this warning, even if it was to take effect, was to takeeffect after passing of this order whereas the warning was given and administered cannot relate back to the default which was already made by theappellant. ( 9 ) THE Runt Controller, in my view, should have examined theexplanation given by the tenant with regard to omission to deposit rent ofmouths of July and August 1984 in time without being obsessed with thewarning administered vide order dated 12/09/1984. The Rentcontroller for respons best known to him had not bothered to examine theexplanation given by the appellant in this regard. As far as thesupplementary application was concerned where delay has been of one dayin deposit of rent of April and one day delay in deposit of rent of Octoberand three days delay in the deposit of rent of November 1984, the saiddelays should not have been taken note of for striking out the defence whenthe Rent Controller had thought it fit not to give any opportunity to theappellant for filing the reply to that application under Section 15 (7) forgetting his explanation. ( 10 ) BE that as it may, it is evident from the record that the tenant haddeposited the rent of July and August on 1/10/1984 and has beendepositing the rent of subsequent months as well. That would show that thetenant had no intention of wilfully disobeying the order of the Court passedunder Section 15 (1 ). The tenant could not be termed as contumaciousdefaulter. For the delay made in the deposit of rent the other party has notsuffered any such damage which cannot be compensated with costs. I thinkit is a fit case where the delay ought to have been condoned on payment ofsome costs. The tenant could not be termed as contumaciousdefaulter. For the delay made in the deposit of rent the other party has notsuffered any such damage which cannot be compensated with costs. I thinkit is a fit case where the delay ought to have been condoned on payment ofsome costs. ( 11 ) I allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and condonethe delay made by the tenant in deposit of rent, subject-matter of the impugned orders, on payment of Rs. 500. 00 as costs. The parties are directed toappear before the Rent Controller for further proceedings in the case on 19/04/1993. ( 12 ) OFFICE to see that the Lower Court record is returned to the Rent Controller before that date.