IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Civil Revision No. 193 of 2015 Decided on: 21.11.2025 ___________________________________________._________

Kasturi Devi H ……….. Petitioner Versus Rajeev Sharma & Ors.

……….Respondents _____________________________o_______________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioners : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.

: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajit Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

____________________________________________________

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)

The eviction petition in the case at hand was decided vide judgment dated 14.03.2001. The relevant portion, i.e., the relief granted therein reads as follow:-

“In view my findings and discussions above, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Respondents are ordered to be evicted from the demised premises consisting of 2 rooms, kitchen, Bathroom/toilet, store and glazed Verandah situated in ground floor (2^nd storey), walterton Main Building, Chhota Shimla, Shimla-2, on the ground that they are in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 8314.47/- and on the ground of bonafide requirement of petitioner for his own use and occupation. Respondents are

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

directed to put the landlord in possession of demised premises. However it is made clear that respondents shall not be liable for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent if they tender/pay the arrears of rent within 30 days from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents are burdened with cost of the petition. Memo of Cost be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room.”

2. Appeal against the same was preferred before the First Appellate Court on 05.05.2011. The same was decided on 01.08.2015. The specific allegtation made in the case at hand is that while filing the first appeal, the entire amount as awarded in the relief clause specifically the costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/- was not deposited while filing the appeal. In this respect, attention is invited to CMP No. 23738 of 2024, specifically para No. 4 thereof, wherein it has been categorically asserted that costs assessed at Rs. 2,000/- have not been deposited by the present revision petitioner while filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court.

3. Response to the aforesaid paragraphs, specifically para No. 4 categorically reflects that only rent was deposited by the present petitioner while filing the first appeal, as it is categorically asserted that costs and interest were deposited by the other joint tenant one Smt. Shobha Chaurasiya while filing her application for setting aside the ex parte order under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was filed by the other joint tenant Smt. Shobha Sharma @ Shobha Chourasiya on 24.11.2011. The same was decided on 31.03.2021. Appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed.

4. The requirement of depositing the amount due before filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court emanates from Section 14(2)(i) third proviso thereto of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. The same is reproduced as follows:-

“Provided further that the tenant against whom the Controller has made an order for eviction on the ground on 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;”

5. The aforesaid provision specifically the expression “amount due” used therein came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court. The judgment is reported as 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 498, titled Wazir Chand vs. Ambaka Rani and another, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced as follows:-

7. The legislative intent can also be clearly discerned from the fact that in