IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 4/2010 Decided on:19.5.2011 _____________________________________________ H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited. …Petitioner. Versus M/S. G.D. Khanna and sons and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advcoate. For the Respondents: Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.7.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 54-S/14 of 2008. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents-tenants (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenants’ for convenience sake) moved an application under section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on 20.6.2006 for depositing of rent with effect from 1.6.1999 to 31.3.2006 before the learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 Rent Controller. The application was contested by the petitioner-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ for convenience sake). The Rent Controller allowed the application on 30.4.2008. Landlord preferred an appeal bearing Rent Appeal No. 54-S/14 of 2008 before the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla. The Appellate Authority dismissed the same on 23.7.2009. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr. T.S. Chauhan has vehemently argued that the landlord has already terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice and thereafter the proceedings have been initiated against the tenants under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Rent (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. Mr. T.S. Chauhan has also argued that the decision of the learned Rent Controller to accept the rent will amount to revival of tenancy. 4. Mr. N.K. Sood has strenuously argued that mere acceptance of rent by the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 will not amount to revival of tenancy. 5. The proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla are distinct and separate. The act of tenants of depositing of rent will have 3 no bearing as far as the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla are concerned. Mr. N.K. Sood fairly undertakes that his client shall not take any advantage of depositing of rent before the Rent Controller so far as the proceedings instituted under Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Rent (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. 6. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by Mr. N.K. Sood, the present petition is disposed of with the observation that the act of the tenant of depositing the rent with the Rent Controller will have no bearing as far as the merits of the case instituted by the landlord against the tenants under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Rent (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Urban), Shimla, are concerned. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 19.5.2011 *awasthi*