IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 213 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28th August, 2009 Kartar Singh Baja Petitioner Versus Surinder Mohan Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Rent Petition No.38-2 of 2003, titled as Shri Surinder Mohan vs. Shri Kartar Singh, was decided by the Rent Controller, Court No.V, Shimla, on 13.8.2007 wherein the tenant (petitioner herein) was held to be in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.63240/- plus statutory interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 1.5.1996. During the pendency of said petition a sum of Rs.28,340/- was deposited by the petitioner-tenant and the said amount was directed to be adjusted. The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla and in terms of impugned order dated 29.11.2008, his appeal No. 7-S/14 of 2008, titled as Kartar Singh Bajaj vs. Surinder Mohan, was dismissed. Hence the present petition. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tenant had failed to deposit the amount in accordance with law and was thus in arrears of rent. According to petitioner’s own admission, as was recorded by the Appellate Authority, no amount of rent stood paid at least with effect from 1.8.2000. The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced as under:- “20. Sh. Satpal Singh (RW-1) in his cross-examination admitted that after 31st July, 2000, he or his father never sent any money order or draft etc. towards the payment of rent to their adversary (petitioner). There is no cogent and convincing evidence on the file to establish that the respondent had offered the payment of rent in cash to the petitioner which the latter refused to accept. In view of the admissions made by the respondent himself, it can be easily said that no rent has been paid by him to the petitioner/landlord from 1st August, 2000 onwards. The petition was instituted on 14.8.2003. On the date of filing of the petition, the respondent was certainly in arrears of rent from 1.5.1996 onwards. The ‘amount due’ has been rightly calculated by the Rent Controller.” During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner could not show as to how the aforesaid findings were erroneous. Third proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987 clearly enjoins upon the tenant against whom the Rent Controller has made an order for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent due from him, the statutory duty to pay the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of order. 3 By now it is well established, in the light of the authoritative pronouncements by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Wazir Chand vs. Ambaka Rani and another, reported on 2005 (2) Shim.L.C. 498, based upon and in the light of the ratio in the case of Madam Mohan and another vs. Krishan Kumar Sood, reported in 1994 Supp (1) S.C.C. 437, that the expression ‘amount due’ occurring in the aforesaid third proviso includes the arrears of rent, the interest thereupon @ 9% per annum and the amount of costs. It is also a well settled proposition of law by now that if the tenant fails to deposit the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, the only option available in law is to enforce the eviction order. Whether the shortfall is Re.1/- or the shortfall is more than Re.1/- if there is any shortfall in the deposit of the amount the eviction order has to be executed, because by not depositing the amount due in its entirety, the tenant forfeits the concession granted to him under the aforesaid third proviso and the only option thereafter is to execute the eviction order. While interpreting the aforesaid third proviso in the light of the fact situation that there occurred a shortfall, howsoever small, in the matter of deposit of the amount due, the Court cannot take into consideration either any extenuating circumstance or any circumstance based upon leniency or amplitude or any other circumstance-which may be based upon or linked with any compelling reason or reasons of difficulty or discomfiture. If there is a shortfall with respect to the deposit of the amount due within a period of 30 days or if the amount due has not been deposited within the aforesaid period of 30 days and even if the deposit is 4 late by one day, concession granted under the aforesaid proviso immediately goes away. There is no escape to that. The said view has been taken by this Court in Bilasi Ram vs. Bhanumagi, CMP No.178 of 2006, decided on 21.8.2006 and Gian Chand vs. Manorma, CR No.197 of 2008, decided on 29.6.2009. For the foregoing reasons, I am fully convinced that the learned Appellate Authority by passing the impugned order has adopted a correct approach by applying the correct position of law. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 28th August, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.