SATPAL ( 1 ) IN the present case the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of possession and damages against the defendant. For adjudication of these applications the facts of the case briefly stated are that the plaintiff company had let out to the defendant company a portion of the first floor in Phase-B, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 23,615. 00 besides other charges vide lease deed dated 16th August, 1978 for a period of five years with effect from 16th August, 1978. The monthly rent at the time of filing of the suit was Rs. 27,157. 25. In the plaint, inter alia, it has been alleged that the defendant has failed to pay rent with effect from 1st August, 1988 to 28th February, 1989 besides parking fees and common service charges. In the order passed by this Court on 27th April, 1992 it has been stated that "counsel for the defendant states that the defendant would be paying arrears of rent from 1st August, 1988 at the rate of Rs. 27,157. 25 paise per month without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. " By this order the defendant company was directed to make the payment of the arrears by 8th June, 1992. Since the order dated 27th April, 1992 passed by this Court was not complied with by the defendant company, the defendant was again directed to pay the amount of arrears of rent within four weeks vide order dated 26th April, 1993. The defendant was further directed to pay costs of Rs. 5000. 00 - but even order dated 26th April, 1993 has not been complied with by the defendant ( 2 ) SINCE the defendant failed to comply with the order dated 27. 4. 1992 passed by this Court, the plaintiff filed an application being IA 9545/92 wherein it has been prayed that since the defendant had failed to pay the amount of arrears of rent as directed by this Court, a decree for the admitted amount of Rs. 12,76,390. 75 paise for the period from 1st August, 1988 to 30th June, 1992, besides making an order striking out defence of the defendant, be passed. ( 3 ) MEANWHILE, the defendant has moved the present applications. In these applications it has been stated that the defendant is willing to make cash down payment of Rs. 12,76,390. 75 paise for the period from 1st August, 1988 to 30th June, 1992, besides making an order striking out defence of the defendant, be passed. ( 3 ) MEANWHILE, the defendant has moved the present applications. In these applications it has been stated that the defendant is willing to make cash down payment of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the arrears of rent from 1st August, 1988 and deferment of further payment upto a date immediately after 14th September, 1993. Accordingly, it has been prayed to this Court to grant leave to the defendant to make a cash down payment of Rs. 3 lakhs towards arrears of rent and grant further extension of time to submit a further proposal immediately after 14th September, 1993, the date on which the proceedings before B. I. F. R. are scheduled to be held. These applications have been opposed by the plaintiff in the reply filed in the court on 24th July, 1993. ( 4 ) MR. Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant is a sick company and an order under section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (for short called the Act ) was passed on 15th June, 1990. He contended that since the proceedings under sections 17 to 19 of the Act are pending before B. I. F. R. , the order directing the defendant to deposit the amount of arrears cannot be passed as proceedings for execution, distress or like against the properties of the sick industrial company are automatically suspended under section 22 (1) of the Act He farther contended that the plaintiff has not paid any court fee for grant of relief of payment of arrears and as such no such order can be passed. ( 5 ) MR. Valmiki Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff, however, submitted that the provisions of section 22 (1) of the Act are not applicable to the eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant company. He further submitted that admittedly the defendant company has not paid the rent since 1st August, 1988 and the orders under section 16 of the Act were passed on 15th June, 1990. He further submitted that the defendant company has failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court on 27th April, 1992 and 26th April, 1993. He further submitted that admittedly the defendant company has not paid the rent since 1st August, 1988 and the orders under section 16 of the Act were passed on 15th June, 1990. He further submitted that the defendant company has failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court on 27th April, 1992 and 26th April, 1993. He, therefore, contended that it is fit case where orders for striking out the defence of the defendant company should be passed. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. vs Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, AIR 1992 SC 1439 . ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. Admittedly the defendant has not paid the rent of the suit premises since 1st August, 1988. By order dated 27th April, 1992 the defendant was directed to pay the amount of arrears by 8th June, 1992. Since the defendant failed to comply with this order, the defendant was given another opportunity to make the payment of the arrears of rent within four weeks vide order dated 26th April, 1993. During the pendency of these applications the defendant company was further given opportunity to make the payment of the arrears of rent but instead of making the payment of the entire amount of the arrears the defendant bad offered two cheques of Rs. 21akhs each one dated 4th August, 1993 and the other dated 12th August, 1993 and for the balance amount no cheque was offered. Since the defendant has failed to comply with the orders dated 27th April, 1992 and 26th April, 1993 passed by this Court, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which defence of the defendant should be struck off. ( 7 ) AS regards the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the present proceedings stand automatically suspended under section22 (1) of the Act, I am of the view that this contention has no meit. In case of M/s. Shree chamundi (supra) the Supreme court has clearly held that the proceedings for eviction initiated by the landlord against a tenant who happens to be a sick industrial company cannot be suspended under section 22 (1) of the Act. In case of M/s. Shree chamundi (supra) the Supreme court has clearly held that the proceedings for eviction initiated by the landlord against a tenant who happens to be a sick industrial company cannot be suspended under section 22 (1) of the Act. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the orders striking out the defence of the defendant cannot be passed inasmuch as the plaintiff has not paid the court fee for me recovery of the amount of arrears of rent, again has no merit The question of depositing the court fee will, arise only in the defendant offers to make the payment of arrears of rent. Since the amount of arrears has not been offered by the defendant to the plaintiff, the question of payment of court fee does not arise. ( 8 ) IN view of the above discussion both the applications filed by the defendant are dismissed. Since the defendant has falled to comply with the orders dated 27th April, 1992 and 26th April, 1993 passed by this Court, I hereby order striking out me defence of me defendant. ( 9 ) LIST IA 9543/92 for further procedings on 11th October, 1993.