Vijender Jain ( 1 ) AGGRRIEVED by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, the landlord-owner has filed the present petition. It has been contended by Mr. Bagai, learned Counsel for the petitioner that an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC was filed by the parties before the Additional Rent Controller on 16th November, 1992. However, on 8th April, 1993 an application was filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, stating before the Additional Rent Controller that the signature of the petitioner was obtained on the application for compromise and on the affidavit under coercion and by fraud, and, therefore, there was no compromise between the parties. Reply to that application was filed by the respondent on 1st November, 1993. Rejoinder was also filed by the appellant. On 23rd January, 1995, the Additional Rent Controller held that as no statement was recorded by the parties in terms of Order 23, Rule 3 of CPC, the application could not be considered and even if the same was to be taken into consideration then also a party making the compromise can withdraw from the same unless the same was recorded in the Court and allowed by the Court. That order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 23rd January, 1995. No appeal against that order was preferred TO by the respondent. ( 2 ) ON 12th December, 1995 the respondent filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 seeking amendment in the written statement on the ground of alleged compromise. It has been contended before me by learned Counsel for the appellant that once the Additional Rent Controller found that there was no compromise as the application filed by the appellant dated 8th April, 1993 has been adjudicated upon by the Additional Rent Controller, on that score no amendment could have been permitted by the Rent Control Tribunal. It has further been contended before me by Mr. Bagai learned Counsel for the appellant that even otherwise the amendment, apart from being maid fide, was hopelessly time-barred. He has contended that the order dated 23rd January, 1995 was not challenged. Even otherwise the amendment was filed alleging a compromise which took place on 1st November, 1992. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the amendment could not have been allowed as it was highly belated. He has contended that the order dated 23rd January, 1995 was not challenged. Even otherwise the amendment was filed alleging a compromise which took place on 1st November, 1992. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the amendment could not have been allowed as it was highly belated. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the appellant has cited 1987 (IV) JT 620 , Laxmax Industries Ltd. v. DESU and Another, 66 (1997) DLT 272, EMI Ltd. v. Arun Bhandari, Vol. (66) 1997 DLT Delhi 655 and also Union of India and Another v. Sher Singh and Ors. , JT 1997 (2) SC 659=ll (1997) CLT 58 (SC ). Yet another contention which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant impugning the order of the Rent Control Tribunal is that the defence of the respondent was struck off under Section 15 (7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was contended before me that an order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed against the respondent on 27th October, 1983. There was default in payment of rent by the respondent from September, 1992 till April, 1996 i. e. a default of almost forty-four months. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Andley, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the application which was filed on 16th November, 1992 was not disposed of and, therefore, the respondent was under a bona fide belief that he had not to deposit the rent in terms of order passed under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mr. Andley has further contended that there was neither wilful nor contumacious default on the part of the respondent and respondent had acted bona fidely in view of the compromise entered into between the parties on 1st November, 1992 and in his support has cited Mohd. Sualin v. Mrs. Sunita Chugh, 1982 RLR 29 . Mr. Andley has further contended that there was no delay in filing the application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code as the application for striking out the defence of the respondent was filed by the appellant on 23rd March, 1995. The reply to the same was filed by the respondent on 8th November, 1995 and a composite order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The reply to the same was filed by the respondent on 8th November, 1995 and a composite order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The application for amendment was filed on 12th December, 1995. ( 4 ) REPELLING the contention of the appellant that respondent had no right to file an application for amendment Mr. Andley has contended that the order of the Additional Rent Controller in no way stands in respondent s taking the plea that there was, in fact, a compromise keeping in view the documents, applications, affidavits, receipts, lease deed executed by both the parties. I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) LET me first deal with the arguments with regard to the order passed under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act passed by the Additional Rent Controller. That order was passed in the year 1983. The argument of learned Counsel for the respondent that as the respondent has filed an application on 16th November, 1992, inter alia, indicating that there was a compromise between the parties, therefore, under a bona fide mistake he has not complied with the order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, even if assume to be correct yet there is no explanation as to why no deposit was made after 23rd January, 1995 when the Additional Rent Controller on an application filed by the appellant that there was no compromise, held that the appellant had a right to resile from the compromise if statement of the parties have not been recorded and has not taken into consideration the said compromise. There was no stay operating in favour of the respondent not to comply with the order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Mere pendency of an application will not give a right to the respondent to stay the order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. That order was neither challenged nor any efforts were made by the respondent from 23rd January, 1995 till the deposit was made in April, 1996 to obtain any stay from the Additional Rent Controller or by the Rent Control Tribunal. That order was neither challenged nor any efforts were made by the respondent from 23rd January, 1995 till the deposit was made in April, 1996 to obtain any stay from the Additional Rent Controller or by the Rent Control Tribunal. The finding of the Rent Control Tribunal in pragraph 5 of the impugned order that the respondent was under a bonafide mistake that he was not to deposit the rent from 1st October, 1992 onward is without any basis and they are merely surmises and conjectures by the Rent Control Tribunal. On this score I set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal on this point. ( 6 ) COMING to the next ground of challenge as to whether the amendment sought for ought to have been allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal, the Rent Control Tribunal in its impugned order introduced the element of his personal knowledge which was totally uncalled for. He was exercising his jurisdiction as a Rent Control Tribunal where he had to decide the matter in accordance with law. Once the Additional Rent Controller after hearing both the parties with regard to the factum of alleged compromise directed that there was no compromise in pursuance to the alleged compromise dated 1st November, 1992 it was not open for the Rent Control Tribunal to have allowed the amendment because he was aware as a Sessions Judge while dealing with some matter between the parties on the Criminal Side about such compromise. If the amendment sought for was bonafide on the basis of the alleged compromise dated 1st November, 1992 then what stopped the respondent from filing an application for amendment of the written statement when respondent became aware of the fact that the appellant wanted to resile from the compromise after appellant filed an application to that effect on 8th April, 1993? Allowing of an amendment in 1998 on an application which was filed by the respondent on 12th December, 1995 by the Rent Control Tribunal for the event of 1992 was totally wrong as same was hopelessly time-barred. I do not see any merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the respondent. I set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 6th January, 1998 on this score also.