Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rattan Chand vs Madhu Bharat Chadha & Another on 2 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 139 of 2023
Date of Decision: 02.11.2023
.
Rattan Chand .....Petitioner.
Versus
Madhu Bharat Chadha & another .....Respondents.
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with
rt Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The brief facts given rise to the present petition are that a Rent Petition was decided on 22.06.2019 interse the parties. The eviction of the tenant/ present petitioner was ordered on the ground of arrears of rent. The petitioner/tenant was ordered to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs. 37,106/-within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
3. In the case at hand, the present petitioner/tenant had moved an application before Rent Controller on 16.07.2019 for depositing of rent vide cheque bearing No. 174434 dated 16.07.2019, in favour of the Rent Controller, Dalhousi, District 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2023 20:35:03 :::CIS 2Chamba, HP. In the said application a request was made by the present petitioner/tenant to give intimation to the landlords/ .
respondents regarding deposit of the outstanding rent in the Court of the Rent Controller, Dalhousi, District Chamba, H.P.
4. The principal objections of the landlords/ respondents to the aforesaid application was that the rent had of not been deposited as per the provisions laid down under the Rent Control Act. Hence, according to the landlords rt /respondents, the present application was not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that the Cheque Bearing No. 174434 was never present to the landlord in the first instance.
5. The Rent Controller post consideration of the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand held that petitioner/tenant had rendered himself liable for eviction from the demised premise on the ground of non payment of rent within the stipulated period. For the purpose of the present petition it would be appropriate to refer to third proviso (part (i) of sub Section (2) of Section 14). The same is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"...Provided further that the tenant against whom the Controller has made an order for eviction on the ground of 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 the order..."
.
::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2023 20:35:03 :::CIS 36. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions leads to one conclusion that the aforesaid provision does not envisage a .
situation, whereby a tenant can deposit the arrears with the Rent Controller. The expression used in the third provisio (reproduced herein above) is "pays" and not "deposited" the amount so determined by the Rent Controller. The Section itself does not of provide for deposit of the amount with the Rent Controller, after the order is passed. As such the only meaning which can given rt to the expression "pay" (third provisio) "tender" (part (i) of sub Section (2) of Section 14) is that the Rent is to be directly paid to the landlord and not deposited in the Court.
7. In support of the aforesaid, reliance can be placed on judgment passed in Civil Revision No. 128 of 2012, titled as Hans RajKhimta vs. Smt. Kanwaljeet kaur alias Sardarni Babli, decided on 29.02.20216.
8. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment categorically reflects that in the said case the tenant did not pay/tender the arrears of rent to the landlord but instead deposited it with Rent Controller vide a cheque. There in also amount was deposited within a period of 30 days. Post considering the aforesaid facts the Hon'ble Court in the said case came to the conclusion that depositing the amount directly in the Court of the Rent controller and not tendering it first to the landlord was a serious default on ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2023 20:35:03 :::CIS 4 the part of the tenant. According to the learned Judge, the same was not in consonance with the spirit and the letter of the law.
.
9. In my considered view, the aforesaid judgment squarely covers the present case. For the reasons stated herein above, the order passed by the Rent Controller is upheld.
10. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
of Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
rt (Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
November 2, 2023
(Nisha)
::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2023 20:35:03 :::CIS