Judgment

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted,

(2) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself was heard.

(3) THE respondent is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 183.33 per month in the premises in dispute i.e. shop No. 50, The Mall, Shimla. On 7/03/1983, late Smt Dhani Devi, predecessor-in-interest of appellant No. 2 and Shri Madan Mohan, appellant No. 1, filed an application for eviction of the respondent on various grounds. One of the grounds on which the eviction was claimed was non-payment of rent. It was stated in the eviction petition that the respondent was in arrears of rent with effect from 1/03/1980 to 28/02/1983. The Rent Controller on 29/07/1986 passed an order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The operative part of the said order is as under:

"IN the light of my finding on issue no. 1 above, the application is allowed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and the petition fails on other grounds. However, the respondent shall not be evicted from the premises in question if he pays to the petitioner or deposits in this court a sum of Rs. 6,600.00, being arrears of rent from 1/03/1980 to 28/02/1983 @ Rs. 2,200.00 p.a. plus interest thereon @ 6 per cent p.a. amounting to Rs. 609.39, up to 2/02/1983 and further interest on Rs. 6,600.00 @ 6 per cent p.a. from 1/03/1983 till August 28, 1986 plus costs assessed at Rs. 100.00 within a period of 30 days from today."

(4) ON 13/08/1986 the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 8,500.00 in the court of the Rent Controller, Shimla. According to the appellants, decree c holders, the amount due inclusive of interest and costs up to 29/03/1986 was Rs. 8,661.29 and till the date of deposit it worked out to Rs. 8,677.79 if the interest was to be calculated at the ordered rate till 13/08/1986.

(5) ACCORDING to the appellants the amount deposited was not in accordance with the order of the ejectment dated 29/07/1986 and was short, and they filed the execution petition before the Rent Controller seeking possession of the suit premises.

(6) ON the execution petition being opposed, the Rent Controller framed the following two issues:

"(A) Whether the tender made by the respondent of the rent amount is short as alleged?

(B) Relief."

(7) BY an order dated 18/05/1990 the Rent Controller while deciding issue No, I held that the tender made by the respondent was short to the tune of Rs. 161.29. However, while deciding issue No. 2, the Rent Controller allowed 15 days time from the date of the order for deposit of the said amount.

(8) THE appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller dated 18/05/1990 filed revision petition in the High court. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the executing court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for making good the deficiency of Rs. 161.29 inasmuch as since period of 30 days has been fixed by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) itself, the court could not either enlarge or abridge this period.

(9) BY the impugned judgment dated 17/12/1991, the High court dismissed the revision petition. The High court while interpreting the words "amount due" occurring in the third proviso to Section 14(2(i) of the Act held that these words referred to arrears of rent only and do not include interest and costs.

(10) IT will be noticed that neither of the parties had challenged the order 29/07/1986 by which the order of eviction was passed on the ground of non-payment of rent against the respondent but the respondent had been given the liberty of avoiding eviction provided he deposited the amounts as stated in the order within the period of 30 days from the date of the said order. Before the High court it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the executing court had no jurisdiction to extend the time to make good the deficienc