2026:HHC:20449 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CR No.59 of 2011 Decided on: 27.05.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Surinder Lal Sood and another ...Petitioners Versus Sadhu Ram (deceased) through his LRs and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for petitioner No.1. Name of Petitioner No.2 stands deleted. For the respondents: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 5. Names of respondents No.2 and 4 stands deleted. None for respondent No.3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 30.10.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP), whereby the Execution Petition No.26/2007/06, titled, Smt. Rainka Devi (deceased) through her LRs, Shri 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:20449 Surinder Lal Sood and another vs. Shri Sadhu Ram and others, has been dismissed. 2. The petitioners and the respondents in the present petition are referred to as decree holders and judgment debtors. 3. The facts as emerge from pleadings are that the eviction petition preferred by the decree holders was allowed by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 29.04.1993, on the grounds that the judgment debtors are in arrears of rent and further the premises was sublet by them without their consent and further also changed the user of the premises. The judgment debtors feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted, holding that the necessary ingredients of the grounds of subletting and change of the user have not been pleaded inasmuch as it was not stated that subletting and the change of user had taken place after the commencement of the Act and hence the eviction of the judgment debtors on these two grounds could not have been ordered. So far as the ground relating to the arrears of rent was concerned, the Appellate Authority had held that 3 2026:HHC:20449 the amount due having been deposited by the judgment debtors after passing of the order by the Rent Controller, the judgment debtors would not be ejected as a result of the order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent. 4. Decree holders feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority had preferred the revision petition before this Court bearing Civil Revision No.206 of 1994 and this Court had disposed of the same on 10.10.2006, holding that no fault can be found with the findings of the Appellate Authority with respect to the necessary ingredients of alleged subletting and change of user. However, so far as the finding returned by the Appellate Authority that the amount due has been deposited by the judgment debtors and thus they shall not be ejected is concerned, it was not within the domain of the Appellate Authority to have adjudged while deciding the appeal against the order of ejectment, whether the amount that has been deposited was equal to the amount due required to be deposited or it was short. Only the Rent Controller, on being approached by the decree holders has the jurisdiction to determine such question. 4 2026:HHC:20449 5. After the disposal of the revision petition, the decree holders filed the execution petition seeking execution of order dated 29.04.1993, passed by the Rent Controller, seeking possession of the disputed premises i.e. temporary shed (khokha) measuring 10’x10’ and a vacant piece of land measuring 40’x34’x21’, situated in Ward No.4, Cantt. Road, Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala, Tehsil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P., on the ground that the judgment debtors had not paid the rent due and costs of the premises as awarded by the Rent Controller in their favour. The decree holders also placed on record the calculation sheet. 6. The judgment debtors preferred the objections to the execution petition and averred that they before filing the appeal i.e. on 09.06.1993 had deposited a sum of Rs.5,826/- in the Court on 21.05.1993. The above amount included (i) arrears of rent from 01.01.1976 up to the passing of the order of eviction by the Rent Controller; (ii) the interest accruing thereon as per the provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act and (iii) the costs of petition awarded by the Rent Controller as per the decree sheet. The amount deposited was in excess of the amount, actually 5 2026:HHC:20449 due on the date of passing the order of eviction, which was Rs.5664.25/-, whereas the amount deposited was Rs.5,826/-. Excess amount was deposited by way of precaution so as to cover up any error which may have occurred while calculating the amount due. 7. Decree holders filed reply to the objections and controverted the facts. 8. Learned Executing Court on the basis of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the judgment debtors deposited the amount due within the prescribed period and as such the decree holders are not entitled for possession of the disputed premises on the ground of non-payment of the rent due. The eviction of the judgment debtors was subject to depositing the rent amount. While dismissing the execution petition, the Executing Court had also noticed the formula for calculating the interest on the rent due for 12 months, which is reproduced hereunder: “12 months x 13 months x rate of monthly rent x 9 divided by 2 x 12 x 100 = interest” 9. By applying the said formula, interest for 139 months from 01.01.1976 to 31.08.1987 at the rate of 6% 6 2026:HHC:20449 per annum comes out to be to Rs.973/- as rightly calculated by the decree holders, but interest for 68 months from 01.09.1987 to 30.04.1993 at the rate of 9% per annum comes out to be Rs.350/- and the decree holders have calculated the amount as Rs.1769.70. The judgment debtors, however have calculated the interest for 68 months from 01.09.1987 to 30.04.1993 at the rate of 9% per annum which comes Rs.362.25/- It has been held that the amount due in actual comes out to be less than Rs.5664/-, but the judgments debtors have undisputedly deposited more amount actual due. The judgments debtors have deposited the amount due within 30 days from the passing of the order dated 29.04.1993 and since the eviction of the judgment debtors was subject to depositing of the said rent, the judgments debtors are not entitled to possession of the disputed premises on the ground of non- payment of the rent due. 10. The decree holders feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 30.10.2010 have assailed the same on the ground that the Executing Court had fallen in grave error while dismissing the petition filed by them. The learned Executing Court has passed the order without properly 7 2026:HHC:20449 appreciating the facts and evidence led thereon. Even the calculation Ex. DH/A, a copy of which is also appended as Annexure P-7, clearly goes on to show that the interest w.e.f. 01.09.1987 to 30.04.1993 at the rate of 9% per annum would come out to be Rs.1769.70/- and thus, the amount of interest calculated as Rs.350/- by the Rent Controller, is wrong. Such a material piece of evidence has been totally over-looked by the Rent Controller. Further the Rent Controller has gravely erred by ignoring a categorical admission made by Judgment debtor/respondent No.1, Sh. Sadhu Ram, while deposing as RW-1, whereby he had clearly stated that the amount due is Rs.6902.70/-, and this aspect has also been brushed aside. 11. Learned counsel representing the judgment debtors supported the order under challenge and submitted that since no illegality has been committed by the learned Executing Court, this Court may not like to interfere with the said order. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 13. It is not in dispute that the eviction petition, which was allowed by the Rent Controller was only on 8 2026:HHC:20449 account of the arrears of rent after the order passed by this Court in revision petition. It is also not in dispute that the rent of the premises was fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per month, which was to be paid w.e.f. 01.01.1976 till 30.04.1993. It is also not in dispute that before the amendment carried out in the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the interest on the amount of rent had to be paid at the rate of 6% w.e.f. 01.01.1976 till 31.08.1987 and thereafter at the rate of 9% w.e.f. 01.09.1987 to 30.04.1993. It is also not in dispute that the total rent which was payable by the judgment debtors to the decree holders comes to Rs.4160/- w.e.f. 01.01.1976 to 30.04.1993. So far as the interest is concerned, as per the calculation made by the decree holders, the interest has been calculated at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 01.01.1976 to 31.08.1987 showing to be Rs.973/- and there is no dispute even to this amount which is for 139 months. The dispute is only with respect to the interest calculated at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.09.1987 to 30.04.1993 which is admittedly for 68 months and according to the decree holders the interest comes to Rs.1769.70/-, whereas as per the formula devised to calculate interest at the rate of 6% per annum 9 2026:HHC:20449 w.e.f. 01.01.1976 to 31.08.1987, it comes to Rs.973/- and w.e.f. 01.09.1987 to 30.04.1993, at the rate of 9% per annum, it come out to be Rs.350/-. If according to the decree holders, the interest at the rate of 6% for 139 months comes to Rs.973/-, it cannot be believed that the interest at the rate of 9% for 68 months will come to Rs.1769.70. Thus, the calculations made by the decree holders as depicted in Annexure P-7, which was exhibited as DH/A are not correct. If the amount of rent calculated by the decree holders, which is Rs.4160/- w.e.f. 01.01.1976 to 30.04.1993, is added to the interest calculated of Rs.973/- w.e.f. 01.01.1976 to 31.08.1987 and Rs.350/- w.e.f. 01.09.1987 to 30.04.1993, the total amount come to Rs.5483/-, whereas the judgment debtors deposited an amount of Rs.5826/- as on 21.05.1993, which is admittedly before 30 days from passing the order by the Rent Controller on 29.04.1993. Therefore, the Executing Court has not committed any illegality while holding that the amount deposited by the judgment debtors is more than the actual amount of rent due and payable to the decree holders including the interest. 14. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the present 10 2026:HHC:20449 petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. 27 th May, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge