IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.R. No. 197 of 2008 Date of Decision : June 29, 2009 Gian Chand … Petitioner Versus: Manorma …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate For the respondent: Ms. Suvrata, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- tenant assailing the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Mandi, H.P., whereby his Objection Petition No. 4 of 2008 filed in Execution Petition No. 24-X of 2007 titled as Manorma vs. Gian Chand stands dismissed. The respondent herein filed a petition for ejectment under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller held the tenant to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. March, 2000 upto 31.10.2004 @ Rs.325/- P.M. and passed an order dated 1.10.2004 for ejectment on the said ground. The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Mandi and in terms of interim order dated 29.12.2004, 2 2 the operation of the order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the Rent Controller was suspended. Said order is reproduced as under:- “29.12.2004. Present: Appellant with Sh. S.N. Sharma, Advocate. Respondent with Shri P.P. Goel, Advocate who files memo of appearance. Heard. As agreed, a sum of Rs.18,525/- be deposited by the appellant within 10 days from today. The impugned order dated 1.12.2004 of learned Rent Controller shall remain suspended till final decision of the case. If the amount is not deposited within the time granted by this authority, the order can be enforced by the respondent. This application stands accordingly disposed of. Be consigned and tagged with the main file. Sd/- (J. L. Gupta) Appellate Authority, Mandi.” It is the admitted case of the parties that on the asking of the appellate authority the Rent Controller determined the amount of arrears of rent, plus statutory interest to be Rs.24,142/-. It is also admitted that the tenant’s appeal was eventually dismissed. It is also an admitted fact that amount over and above Rs.18,525/- was not deposited by the tenant and there was a short tender of Rs.5617/-. Consequently, the land lady filed an execution petition which was objected to by the tenant on the ground that since the 3 3 parties had agreed for passing of the order dated 29.12.2004, hence the tenant was not obliged to have deposited the entire arrears of rent. The executing Court rejected the tenant’s contention and held the amount of rent along with upto date interest not to have been tendered in accordance with law, the objection petition was not maintainable and the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller was liable to be executed. It is this order which has been impugned by the petitioner-tenant herein. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant provisions of Section 14 of the Act are reproduced as under:- 14(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied:- (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable: Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the 4 4 Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid; Provided further that if the arrears pertain to the period prior to the appointed day, the rate of interest shall be calculated at the rate of 6 percent per annum; 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) The provisions of the statute are evidently clear. The tenant was under statutory obligation to have deposited the entire arrears of rent along with statutory interest within a period of 30 days from the date of order. To my mind, the order dated 29.12.2004 does not record the compromise entered into between the parties as required in accordance with law. That apart, admittedly, the order dated 29.12.2004 was passed in the year 2004 and subsequently, the tenant’s appeal was dismissed on 24.4.2006 after the Rent Controller determined the total amount due and payable by the tenant to the landlady as arrears of rent. The determination by the Rent Controller was on 21.1.2006. Even subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal, short fall of Rs.5617/- was not made good within the statutory period of 30 days. 5 5 Hence, it cannot be said that the tenant is entitled to the statutory protection of the Act and cannot be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent. The issue in question in fact is no longer res integra as the Apex Court in Madan Mohan & anr. Vs. Krishan Kumar Sood 1994 Supp(1) SCC 437 and subsequently Full Bench of this Court in Wazir Chand vs. Ambaka Rani & anr. Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) (FB) 271 has already dealt with the issue in question. The Apex Court in Madan Mohan (surpa) clarified that unless the order passed by the Controller is a nullity the Executing Court cannot ignore it and in the Execution Application, the Court cannot go behind its own order. In Wazir Chand (supra), the Court clarified that the expression “amount due” as occurring in the third proviso includes the arrears of rent uptil the date of passing of the final eviction order as also interest upon such arrears of rent @ 9% per annum and the costs of the application as assessed by the Rent Controller. The Court below has considered the matter in its entirety For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 29, 2009. (rana)