IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No.18 of 2024

Date of Decision : 07.01.2026

Gurdarshan Singh Bindra

…… Petitioner

Versus

Shashi Bala and others ……Respondents

Coram:

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

Whether approved for reportingu?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

hThe eviction petition, in the case at hand, was filed on

24.10.2018 by the present respondent/landlord. The same was filed on two grounds, namely arrears of rent and bona fide requirement. The eviction petition so filed by the present respondent/landlord was decided vide judgment dated 26.07.2022. The eviction petition was allowed on both the grounds. The arrears of rent due and payable by the present

petitioner/tenant had been determined in the eviction order.

2. Being aggrieved of the same, an appropriate appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court on 18.08.2022. The same was

dismissed vide judgment dated 29.09.2023.

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

3. For the purpose of present petition, we are concerned with the deposit of arrears of rent as determined by the Rent Controller in the eviction order dated 26.07.2022. In this respect, attention of this Court is invited to an application filed by the petitioner/tenant dated 10.08.2022 filed before the Rent Controller on 12.08.2022. From perusal of the application, it is evident that all that was being sought was the permission to deposit the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller. From a perusal of the order dated 12.08.2022, ptassed on the application so filed, the Demand Draft made in favour of the Rent Controller, Court No.1, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, dated 10.08.2022, by virtue of which the payment was to be made, was accepted and it was ordered that the arrears of rent deposited be deposited under the relevant head and thereafter be invested in the Recurring Deposit. Vide the same order dated 12.08.2022, notice of the application was sent to the present respondent/landlord and the matter was thereafter fixed for 01.11.2022.

4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 12.08.2022, notice was issued to the present respondent/landlord. The same was served on the respondent/landlord on 17.08.2022, as is evident from the service report appended on the reverse side of the summons by the Process Server. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that along-wtih copy of the notice, copy of the application has also been served upon the petitioner/ tenant. Thereafter, the matter was posted for 01.11.2022. On the said date, none had appeared on behalf of the respondent/landlord despite being served.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord contends that in order to enjoy the protection of the Rent Act when eviction had been ordered on arrears of rent, the tenant must act strictly in accordance with Rent Act. He further contends that observance of the provisions of Rent Act in this respect is mandatory. Equitable considerations have no role to play. Strict compliance of procedure is necessary. Other than the aforesaid, he submits that the procedure of deposit as resorted tto by the tenant/petitioner, in the case at hand, is not contemplated under the Rent Act, specifically Section 14, where under eviction, in the case at hand, has been ordered. According to learned counsel for the respondent/tenant, in the first instance, arrears of rent were required to be paid to the landlord.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant contends on the strength of the judgment report in Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 1375, titled Surinder Lal Sood and another vs. Sadhu Ram and others, that the issue in the case at hand as is being raised by the present respondent/landlord qua maintainability of the present petition can only be examined by the Executing Court.

7. It is well settled that benefits co