IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No.181 of 2025 Date of Decision : 11.12.2025

Amrit Lal

…… Petitioner

Versus

Ramdhan

……Respondent

Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Kaundal, Advocate.

For the respondent : Nemo.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

CMP No.30407 of 2025

The present application has been filed for placing on record

certain additional documents. The eviction, in the case at hand, had been

Hordered on the ground of arrears of rent, insofar as the present applicant

is concerned. Since the documents sought to be placed on record pertain to deposit of arrears of rent, in the case at hand, the same are ordered to

be taken on record. The application stands disposed of.

Civil Revision No.181 of 2025

2. The requirement of depositing the amount due before filing an appeal before the First Appellate Court emanates from Section 14(2)(i)

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

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;”

3. The aforesaid provision specifically the expression “amount due” used therein came up for cotnsideration 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 of these two expressions or any other gsimilar expression in the third proviso, perhaps one could argue that the legislative intent was that the tenant should be held i liable to pay the rent or the arrears of rent only. But by using the expression “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.”

5. In this respect, reference can also be made to 2007(1) SLC 88, 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, repoPrted in

1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 437, that the expression ‘amount due’ occurring in the aforesaid third proviso inc.ludes 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 d ue within a period of 30 days from the date of order, the only ofption available in law is to enforce the eviction order. Whethoer 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 forfeits the concession granted to him under the aforesaid third proviso and the only optionu thereafter is to executed the eviction order.”

6. The soine-qua-non for maintaining an appeal before the First Appellate CCourt 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. Jagat R