P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been brought against order dated April 26, 1984 of the Additional Rent Controller by which while striking out defence of the petitioner by taking resort to Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act ) the Additional Rent Controller proceeded to pass the eviction order against the petitioner in a petition brought under Section 25-B read with Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that on notice being issued to the petitioner-tenant in the main petition the leave to defend application was moved which was at first dismissed in default and thereafter it was restored and the court came to pass the following order on 4/4/1983. "present: Petitioner No. 1 None for the respondent. Soon after this counsel for respondent appears. Above order and dismissal to be recalled but it transpires that petitioner has left. Notice be issued to him on P. F. for 7. 4. 1983. Soon after petitioner appears heard. Order for dismissal and decreeing the petition is revoked. Heard on the application for leave to defend. On perusing the application. I find that triable issues have been raised by the respondent and hence he is bound to be given leave to defend the suit. However it is transpired that the respondent has not paid the rent for the last several years. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that there being a dispute between the petitioner and his brothers regarding the landlordship the respondent has not paid the rent. In the interest of justice it is hereby directecd that the respondent shall deposit the arrears of rent for the preceding three years henceforth at the rate of Rs. 75. 00 p. m. about which there is no dispute and shall so deposit the arrears of rent within 30 days from today. It is further directed that respondent shall go on deposit the monthly rent w. e. f. the month of April 1983 month by month by 15th of the succeeding month failing which respondent shall face the consequences. It is also made clear that the amount so deposited shall remain deposited without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Announced. Let the W. S. be filed on 21/5/1983 and replication on 1/6/83. It is also made clear that the amount so deposited shall remain deposited without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Announced. Let the W. S. be filed on 21/5/1983 and replication on 1/6/83. sd/- A. R. C. 4/4/1983 "application filed 23/4/1983 Order: Notice on P. F. for date Deposit deferred till then sd/- A. R. C. 28/4/1998" ( 3 ) IT appears that a review application was also moved by the tenant seeking the review of the direction given for deposit of the rent but that application was dismised. ( 4 ) THE respondents had moved an application under Section 15 (7) of the Act seeking striking out the defence of the petitioner taking the plea that the Additional Rent Controller had granted leave to defend to the petitioner on condition regarding deposit of arrears of rent and month to month rents. It was not pleaded by the respondents that the order with regard to deposit of rent has been made under Section 15 (2) or Section 15 (4) of the Act. The respondents treated the order as conditional order granting leave to defend. Even the Additional Rent Controller in the impugned order has interpreted the order dated April 4, 1983 as an order granting leave to defend on certain conditions and as those conditions were not complied with by the petitioner he proceeded to grant eviction order in favour of the respondents without recording the evidence. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has brought to my notice Precision Steel and Enginering Works and Another Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal. AIR 1982 SC 1518 , Which categorically laid down the law that while granting leave to defend application no restrictions could be imposed by the Controller. As a matter of fact if we read the order closely it is so clear that in fact leave to defend application has been allowed uncondition ally and directions regarding deposit of arrears of rent and month to month rent have been incorporated in the latter part of the order but the order does not say at all that leave to defend application has been allowed on condition of deposit of rent. So it cannot be treated as a conditional order granting leave to defend. So it cannot be treated as a conditional order granting leave to defend. ( 6 ) THE question which arises for consideration is whether the order made regarding deposit of rent could be treated to be an order under Section 15 (2) or Section 15 (4) of the Act. There was a dispute between the parties with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as the petitioner has taken the plea that respondents were not the only landlords of the premises in question. So the Controller could have passed the order under Section 15 (4) and it could be deemed to be an order under Section 15 (4) on an oral application of the respondents. It has been held in Miss Santosh Mehta Vs. Om Perkash 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter (S. C.) 355 that an order could be made under Section 15 in the proceedings brought under Section 25-B of the Act and non-compliance of the order results in striking out the defence undersection 15 (7 ). then the said order is appealable. The inference is obvious from this judgment that in the eviction proceedings brought under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Act an order under Section 15 (2) or Section 15 (4) of the Act could be made. ( 7 ) IT appears that the pities were not clear as to under what provisions of law the order regarding deposit of rent had been made. The respondents as well as the Additional Rent Controller were under the impression that this order of deposit of rent is a condition imposed for granting leave to defend to the petitioner but now counsel for the respondents has argued that the interpretation being given to this order earlier before the Additional Rent Controller that it was a conditional order is not correct. If that is so then it cannot be said that the petitioner has wilfully or contumaciously disobeyed the order because there was confusion with regard to exact provision under which this particular order had been made. Admittedly now during the pendency of this civil revision the petitioner has deposited the entire arrears of rent and has been also depositing future rent month by month. In such a case it would not be in the interest of justice that defence of the petitioner should be struck off under Section 15 (7 ). Admittedly now during the pendency of this civil revision the petitioner has deposited the entire arrears of rent and has been also depositing future rent month by month. In such a case it would not be in the interest of justice that defence of the petitioner should be struck off under Section 15 (7 ). ( 8 ) I allow the revision petition set aside the impugned order and condone the default made by the petitioner in not complying with the order subject to payment of Rs. 500. 00 as costs. The Additional Rent Controller shall now proceed with the case in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller for further proceedings in this case on February 22, 1993. Office to see that the lower court record reaches the Controller before that date.