( 2025:HHC:17899 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.116 of 2016 Decided on: 30th May, 2025 __________________________________________________ Govind Ratra ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Sudershna ...Respondent. ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the tenant/petitioner under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), which is in sum and substance against the order dated 27.07.2016, passed by the Appellate Authority (District Judge), Chamba in Rent Appeal No.1 of 2016. 2. The tenant had filed the Appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order passed in Rent Execution Petition No. 830 of 2015 by the Rent Controller on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 21.03.2016, whereby warrant of possession had been issued in favour of Decree Holder directing the Judgment Debtor/tenant to hand over the possession of the premises, as the tenant had not deposited the amount, which was due in the stipulated time. 3. It was noticed by the Rent Controller that the eviction order had been passed on 30.06.2015 and directions have been issued for eviction with a condition that the tenant would not be evicted, if he pays arrears of amount due i.e. Rs.38,500/- w.e.f. July, 2003 till May, 2012, after deducting Rs.15000/-, which had already been paid by the tenant and the said amount was to carry interest at the rate 9% per annum with cost of petition within a period of 30 days. The Rent Controller accordingly came to the conclusion that total amount of rent due along with interest came to Rs.98,580/- and the tenant had only tendered Rs.69,600/- on 28.07.2015, in compliance of the conditional eviction order and therefore issued warrants of possession. 4. The case as such, even before the Executing Court of the tenant admittedly was that the counsel had advised him to deposit the said amount and the tenant was - 3 - under matric and dependent upon his counsel and had no intention to flout the order passed by the Court. Thus, apparently there was admission as such to the shortfall as such in the reply filed to the Execution proceedings and it is not the case of the petitioner/tenant also that the calculation as such, is wrong. It is in such circumstances, the order was passed by the Executing Court, which was subject matter, before the Appellate Court. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court, thus, found that initial order dated 30.06.2015 had never been appealed and thus relied upon the judgment in Rewat Ram Vs. Ashok Kumar & others reported in 2012 (3) Shim. LC 1265 and Bilasi Ram Vs. Bhanumagi, reported in latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 1127. 5. While placing reliance upon Madan Mohan and another vs. Krishan Kumar Sood, reported in 1994 SCC SUPL. (1) 437 the argument was raised that specific amount as such should have been calculated by the Rent Controller and should have been assessed by the Rent Controller. 6. A perusal of the reply filed to the Execution petition on behalf of the present petitioner would go on to show that even though the stand had been taken that the - 4 - counsel as such advised him to deposit the said amount there is no such undertaking given that the respondent had produced a demand draft to make good the arrears. A bald averment is made in the reply to the Execution petition that he was still ready and willing to pay arrears, if found due. Though an admission had already been made that on account of wrong advise as such, he had not deposited, thus in the considered opinion of this Court that even after being put to notice as such, the petitioner-tenant chose not to furnish the amount before the Executing Court to show his bonafides, which led to the execution being allowed. 7. In such circumstance, now it is too late to submit the benefit as such of exact calculation should have been done by the Rent Controller in the initial order dated 30.06.2015 and he had been prejudiced as such. The order of eviction as such was conditional as noticed and the amount was to be paid within 30 days along with the interest element. Section 14 (1) (2) (i) of the Act reads as under:- “14. Eviction of tenants.-(l) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise, whether - 5 - 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 [12 per cent] 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 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 [12 per cent] 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 the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of order ; or” - 6 - 8. The Execution petition had accordingly been filed on 05.11.2015. The reply to the same was filed on 09.03.2016 and at no stage, any application was filed by the petitioner/tenant to make good the shortfall. Counsel for the tenant had put in appearance on 05.01.2016 and taken three dated i.e. 15.02.2016, 08.03.2016 and 09.03.2016 for filing the reply. The tenant had not at any point of time showed his bonafides to deposit the arrears as such to avoid the execution of the order dated 30.06.2015, which in such circumstances, led to the order passed by the Executing Court. 9. The judgments as such relied upon by the Appellate Authority would also go on to show that even if there is a minor shortfall as such, the eviction order has to be executed and the tenant as such forfeits’ the concession granted of the third proviso of Section 14 of the Act. 10. In such circumstances, the order of the Appellate Authority as such dismissing the appeal and upholding the order of the Rent Controller, does not suffer from any infirmity which warrants interference in a Revision Petition since there - 7 - is no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the order. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed. 11. Records of the Courts below be sent back. 12. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner/ tenant was in possession of the shop in question for the last over 20 years, two months’ time is granted to vacate the premises. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are disposed off. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 30th May,2025 (priti)