1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.18 of 2024 Date of Decision : 07.01.2026 Gurdarshan Singh Bindra …… Petitioner Versus Shashi Bala and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The eviction petition, in the case at hand, was filed on 24.10.2018 by the present respondent/landlord. The same was filed on two grounds, namely arrears of rent and bona fide requirement. The eviction petition so filed by the present respondent/landlord was decided vide judgment dated 26.07.2022. The eviction petition was allowed on both the grounds. The arrears of rent due and payable by the present petitioner/tenant had been determined in the eviction order. 2. Being aggrieved of the same, an appropriate appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court on 18.08.2022. The same was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.09.2023. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. For the purpose of present petition, we are concerned with the deposit of arrears of rent as determined by the Rent Controller in the eviction order dated 26.07.2022. In this respect, attention of this Court is invited to an application filed by the petitioner/tenant dated 10.08.2022 filed before the Rent Controller on 12.08.2022. From perusal of the application, it is evident that all that was being sought was the permission to deposit the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller. From a perusal of the order dated 12.08.2022, passed on the application so filed, the Demand Draft made in favour of the Rent Controller, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, dated 10.08.2022, by virtue of which the payment was to be made, was accepted and it was ordered that the arrears of rent deposited be deposited under the relevant head and thereafter be invested in the Recurring Deposit. Vide the same order dated 12.08.2022, notice of the application was sent to the present respondent/landlord and the matter was thereafter fixed for 01.11.2022. 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 12.08.2022, notice was issued to the present respondent/landlord. The same was served on the respondent/landlord on 17.08.2022, as is evident from the service report appended on the reverse side of the summons by the Process Server. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that along-wtih copy of the notice, copy of the application has also been served upon the petitioner/ tenant. Thereafter, the matter was posted for 01.11.2022. On the said date, none had appeared on behalf of the respondent/landlord despite being served. 3 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord contends that in order to enjoy the protection of the Rent Act when eviction had been ordered on arrears of rent, the tenant must act strictly in accordance with Rent Act. He further contends that observance of the provisions of Rent Act in this respect is mandatory. Equitable considerations have no role to play. Strict compliance of procedure is necessary. Other than the aforesaid, he submits that the procedure of deposit as resorted to by the tenant/petitioner, in the case at hand, is not contemplated under the Rent Act, specifically Section 14, where under eviction, in the case at hand, has been ordered. According to learned counsel for the respondent/tenant, in the first instance, arrears of rent were required to be paid to the landlord. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant contends on the strength of the judgment report in Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 1375, titled Surinder Lal Sood and another vs. Sadhu Ram and others, that the issue in the case at hand as is being raised by the present respondent/landlord qua maintainability of the present petition can only be examined by the Executing Court. 7. It is well settled that benefits conferred on the tenant under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act can only be enjoyed on the basis of strict compliance of statutory provisions. Equitable considerations have no place in such matters. The tenant has to scrupulously observe the procedure as prescribed under the statute. In this respect, reliance can be made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Atma 4 Ram vs. Shakuntala Rani, 2005(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 286. The relevant extract is being reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:- “18. In E. Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy, 2022(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 699 : (2003) 1 SCC 123 the provisions of T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 came up for consideration. The requirement of the Act was somewhat similar to the Rajasthan Rent Act and the A. P. Rent Act considered by this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, 1996(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 348: 348 : (1996) (1996) 1 SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, 1996(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 573: (1996) 6 SCC 228. Reiterating the view in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, 1996(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 348: (1996) 1 SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, 1996(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 573: (1996) 6 SCC 228 this Court observed : (SCC pp. 127 & 128, paras 5 & 8). "The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compli-ance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters. The statute contains expression provisions. It prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a pre-condition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance with the proce-dure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i. e. to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. We are fortified in this view by the decisions of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, 1996(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 348: (1996) 1 SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, 1996(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 573: (1996) 6 SCC 228.” 5 8. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 14, 20 and 21 of the Rent Act:- “3. For determining the controversy in issue, the relevant provisions of the "Act" (Section-14, Section 20 & Section 21) are reproduced as under:- "Section 14 (1). A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted there from in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise, whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2). A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied - (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable: Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid; Provided further that if the arrears pertain to the period prior to the appointed day, the rate of interest shall be calculated at the rate of 6 percent per annum: Provided further that the tenant against whom the Controller has made an order for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent due from him, shall not be evicted as a result of his order, if the tenant pays 6 the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of the order; or (ii) to (iv)......; or (v)......; The Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application:" … …. … … "Section 20. Receipt to be given for rent paid. - (1) Every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. (2) Every tenant who makes payment of rent to his landlord shall be entitled to obtain forthwith from the landlord or his authorized agent a written receipt for the amount paid to him duly signed by the landlord or his authorized agent. (3) If the landlord or his authorized agent refuses or neglects to deliver to the tenant a receipt referred to in sub-section (2), the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the tenant within two months from the date of payment and after hearing the landlord or his authorized agent, by order, direct the landlord or his authorized agent to pay to the tenant, by way of dam-ages, such sum not exceeding double the amount of rent paid by the tenant and the costs of the application and shall also grant a certificate to the tenant in respect of the rent paid." "Section 21. Deposit of rent by the tenant. - (1) Where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in section 20 or refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt referred to therein or where there is a bona fide doubts as to the per-son or persons to whom the rent is payable, the 7 tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller in the prescribed manner. (2). … … [Emphasis supplied]” 9. Eviction, in the case at hand, has been ordered under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. The said provision, specifically the third proviso thereto does not envisage a situation wherein the petitioner/tenant can deposit the amount with the Rent Controller. In this respect, reference can gainfully be made to the decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, in Hans Raj Khimta vs. Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur alias Sardarni Babli, 2016 (1) R.C.R. 447 (H.P.). The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced here-in-below:- “4. Careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions leads to one conclusion. Section 14 of the Act does no deposit the amount with the Rent Controller. Nei-not envisage a situation whereby tenant can ther does Sections 20 and 21 provide for such a mechanism. In fact the latter provision deals with a totally different fact situation, enabling the law abiding tenant to deposit the rent upon refusal of the landlord in accepting the same. 5. Evidently the provisions of the Section save the tenant from getting the order of ejectment exe-cuted only and only if the amount due is paid within the stipulated period of time.” 10. In Hans Raj Khimta’s case (supra), it was held that the only meaning which can be given to the expression “pay” is that the rent is to be directly paid to the landlord and not deposited in the Court. Admittedly, in the case at hand, rent has not been paid/tendered to the landlord in the first instance. Deposit has been made in the Court. From a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner/tenant for depositing of rent, it is evident 8 that therein no prayer was made before the Rent Controller for remitting the rent to the landlord or informing him of such deposit. Moreover, the Demand Draft, in the case at hand, was drawn in favour of the Rent Controller. 11. Insofar as the judgment whereupon reliance has been placed by the petitioner/tenant is concerned, the same is not relevant in the case at hand. In the case, whereupon reliance has been placed, eviction had been ordered on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting and also on the change of user. The First Appellate Court had reversed the findings insofar as the ground of subletting and change of user was concerned. While dealing with the ground of arrears of rent, the Appellate Authority had held that since the “amount due” had been deposited by the tenant after passing of the eviction order by the Rent Controller, hence, the tenant could not have been ejected. It is in a revision petition preferred against the said judgment, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed that the question, as to whether the amount which has been deposited in pursuance to the eviction order is equal to the “amount due” or whether it was short, was for the Rent Controller to determine and not the First Appellate Court. The issue involved, in the case at hand, is not qua the short tender. The issue is, as to whether, in terms of provisions of the Rent Act, specifically third proviso of Section 14 of the Act, in order to avail the benefit of protection of the Act, post eviction, the rent was paid/tendered to the landlord/respondent, in the case at hand. 9 12. In my considered view, the rent has not been paid/tendered to the landlord/respondent, in the case at hand, hence, the appeal before the First Appellate Court and even present revision are not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) January 07, 2026 (KS) Judge