The timely payment of rent and the obligation of the judgment debtor to take prompt action to rectify typographical/clerical mistakes in the order.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge:

The instant revision petition has arisen against the impugned order rendered by the learned Rent Controller (1) Shimla in case No.7-10 of 2013 on 11.9.2014 whereby it dismissed the objections instituted by the petitioner herein/judgment debtor/ tenant against the execution of the order of the Rent Controller (1), Shimla of 10.1.2013 which stood modified on 26.8.2013 by the learned Appellate Authority.

2. A perusal of the order of the learned Rent Controller modified in appeal by the Appellate Authority discloses that the findings on Issue No.(i) were rendered in favour of the landlord-respondent herein/decree holder. However, on issues No.(ii) & (iii), the learned Rent Controller recorded findings against the decree holder/respondent herein. The issues as well as the findings recorded thereon stand extracted hereinafter:-

(i) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 22.7.2008, as alleged? OPP

(ii) Whether the demised premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for raising building which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated? OPP

(iii) Whether the petition has been filed with malafide intention, as alleged, if so its effect? OPR

(iv) Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPR

(v) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

(vi) Relief.

Issue-wise findings:

(i) Yes.

(ii) No

(iii) Yes

(iv) No

(v) No

(vi) The petition partly allowed as per operative part of the order.

3. The learned Rent Controller had on a perusal of evidence adduced before it, concluded that the Judgment Debtor/petitioner herein/tenant had fallen into arrears of rent w.e.f. August 2007 to 31.12.2012 @ Rs.6000/- per month, which amount was computed by it to be a sum of Rs.3,24,000/-. The petitioner herein/judgment debtor to escape eviction from the demised premises on the score of its having fallen into arrears of rent, was liable to, within 30 days from the date of rendition of the order by the Rent Controller defray to the respondent herein/decree holder the aforesaid amount by the legally permissible mode. However, the judgment debtor/petitioner herein omitted to do so. It is beaten law of the land that the statutory period of 30 days within which the liability of rent as determined against judgment debtor/petitioner herein by the learned Rent Controller is enjoined to be defrayable to the decree holder/respondent herein by the legally permissible mode, is neither extendable nor enlargeable. Consequently, the judgment debtor/petitioner herein having omitted to by the legally permissible mode defray its determined liability towards arrears of rent for the demised premises to the decree holder/respondent herein, within a period of 30 days from the date of rendition of an order by the learned Rent Controller, was beset with the ensuing legal consequence of its suffering eviction from the demised premises. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has sought to contend that the period of 30 days as mandated by the order of the Rent Controller in tandem with the statutory prescription cast in the relevant statute for a tenant/judgment debtor/petitioner herein to defray its liability towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises to the decree holder/respondent stood enlarged or extended in the face of there existing an error constituted by the fact, of the operative portion of the order of the Rent Controller displaying that the judgment debtor/petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent qua the demised premises w.e.f. August, 2007 to 31.12.2012, whereas the accurate depiction therein qua the period for which the petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent was to have been w.e.f. August, 2008. The existence of the said error in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller fastening a liability upon the petitioner herein to deposit the determined arrears of rent qua the demised premises within 30 days thereto, justifiably precluded and prevented the petitioner herei