IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No.05 of 2025

Date of Decision : 11.12.2025

Avinash Walia …… Petitioner

Versus

Purshotam Lal (deceased) through LRs. and others

……Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with

oMr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the respCondents : Mr. Gold Kumar, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned

order dated 17.12.2024, whereby an appliction filed for deposit of arrears of

irent before the learned Rent Controller has been rejected.

2. The requirement of depositing the amount due before filing an 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;”

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. 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 the third proviso the Legislature advisedly did not use the expression “rent due” or “arrears of rent due”. Had the Legislature used either otf these two expressions or any other similar expression in rthe third proviso, perhaps one could argue that the legislative intent was that the tenant should be held liable to pay the rent or the arrears of rent only. But by using the expressoion “amount due” in the third proviso the Legislature clearly intended that the arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs, as has been stipulated in the first proviso, should be paid by the tenant after the eviction order is passed against him if the tenant wanted to avoid the enforcement or the execution of the eviction order.”

4. In this respect, reference can also be made to 2007(1) SLC i88, titled Bilasi Ram Vs. Bhanumagi, relevant extract whereof reads as follows:

“4. By now it is well established, in the light of the authoritative pronouncements by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Wazir Chand v. Ambaka Rani and another, reported in 2005(2) Shim. L.C. 498, based upon and in the light of the ratio in the case of Madam Mohan and another v. Kirshan Kumar Sood, reported in 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 437, that the expression ‘amount due’ occurring in the aforesaid third proviso includes the arrears of rent, the interest thereupon @ 9% per annum and the amount of costs. It is also a well settled proposition of law by now that if the tenant fails to deposit the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of order, the only option available in law is to enforce the eviction order. Whether the shortfall is Rs.1/- or the shortfall is more than Rs.1/-, if there is any shortfall in the deposit of the amount, the eviction order has to be executed, because by .

not depositing the amount due in its entirety, the tenant forfePits the concession granted to him under the aforesaid third proviso and the only option thereafter is to executed the eviction order..”

5. The sine-qua-non for maintaining an appeal before the First Appellate Court is deposit of the amount due i.e. arrears of rent alongwith interest & costs as contemplated in Section 14(2)(i) third proviso thereto. In Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs. Ja gat Ram 2020(1) Shiml. LC 173., wherein it has been held that payment of rent due within the stipulated period of 30 days is a condition precedent and sine qua non for