IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision Petition No. 130 of 2002. Date of Decision: 29th April, 2008. Smt. Kaushalaya Devi ….. Petitioner. Versus Sh. Harcharan Singh …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The dispute in the present petition relates to the question as to the expression “arrears of rent”. The petitioner, who was landlady, has preferred the present petition against the order of the appellate authority reducing rent for the premises Rs. 600/- per month to Rs. 20/- per month. The second issue raised is as to whether arrears would include payment of rent for the period when the matter remained pending in court. On the first point, there is no evidence to show or suggest that the rent of the demised premises is 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Rs. 600/- per month. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned appellate authority cannot be faulted with. There is no evidence on record to show or suggest that the rent of the premises was Rs. 600/- per month. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the appellate authority. On the second point, the matter is no more res integra. In Madan Mohan and another vs. Krishan Kumar Sood 1994 Supp (1) SCC 437, it has been held:- “14. It will be noticed that there is no provision in the Act or giving powers to the Controller to direct payment or deposit of 'pendente lite' rent for each month during the pendency of the petition for eviction of the tenant. First proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14 shows that in order to show payment or valid tender as contemplated by clause (i) of sub- section (2) of Section 14 by a tenant in default, he has to pay on the first date of hearing the arrears of rent along with interest and costs of the application which are to be assessed by the Controller. Surely where a tenant does not avail of the first opportunity and contests the eviction petition on the ground of non- payment of arrears of rent and fails to show that he was not in default and court finds that the ground has been made out, an order of eviction has to follow. Therefore, it does not stand to reason that such a tenant who contests a claim and fails to avoid order of eviction can still avoid it by merely paying the rent due till the date of the filing of the application for ejectment. The third proviso to clause (i) of sub- section (2) of Section 14 should also receive an interpretation which will safeguard the rights of both the landlord and tenant. The "amount due" occurring in the third proviso in the context will - 3 - mean the amount due on and up to the date of the order of eviction. It will take into account not merely the arrears of rent which gave cause of action to file a petition for eviction but also include the rent which accumulated during the pendency of eviction petition as well. If the tenant has been paying the rent during the pendency of the eviction petition to the landlord, the "amount due" will be only arrears which have not been paid. The landlord, as per the scheme of the section, cannot be worse off vis-a-vis a tenant who was good enough to deposit in court the arrears of rent together with interest and costs on the first date of hearing. If the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted the result would be that the tenant will be better off by avoiding to pay the arrears of rent with interest and costs on the first date of hearing and prefer suffering order of ejectment after contest and then merely offer the amount due as mentioned in the application for ejectment to avoid eviction. This could not be the intention of the legislature.” The full Bench of this court in Wazir Chand vs. Ambaka Rani and another Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 271 has held:- “8. Based upon the aforesaid observations, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the expression “amount due” as occurring in the third proviso includes the arrears of rent uptil the date of the passing of the final eviction order, as also the interest upon such arrears of rent at the rate of 9 percent per annum and the costs of the application as would be assessed by the Rent Controller. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Om Parkash vs. Sarla Kumari and others (supra) laying down ratio to the contrary and giving contrary interpretation to the expression “amount due”, not being a good law is hereby over-ruled by - 4 - us. We also declare that any other judgment of this court adopting a contrary view or giving a contrary interpretation of the expression “amount due”, not being a good law, shall stand over-ruled.” In Krishan Kumar’s case Hon’ble Supreme Court has also dealt with the aspect as to whether there is statutory power vested in any authority to enlarge the time for making the deposit or not. Learned counsel for the parties have contested the fact as to whether the amount due has been deposited or there is short deposit. That determination is not being made in the present petition. It would be open to the parties to establish their respective claims in any execution petition which may be instituted by the landlady. This revision is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Record of the courts below be sent back immediately. 29th April, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.