Amrit Lal Vs Ramdhan

The present application has been filed for placing on record certain additional documents. The eviction, in the case at hand, had been ordered on the ground of arrears of rent, insofar as the present applicant is concerned. Since the documents sought to be placed on record pertain to deposit of arrears of rent, in the case at hand, the same are ordered to be taken on record. The application stands disposed of.

¶16

Civil Revision No.181 of 2025

¶17

The requirement of depositing the amount due before filing

¶18

an appeal before the First Appellate Court emanates from Section 14(2)(i)

¶19

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

2

¶21

third proviso thereto of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. The same is reproduced as follows:-

¶22

“Provided further that the tenant against whom the Controller has made an order for eviction on the ground on 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 order;”

¶23

The aforesaid provision specifically the expression “amount due” used therein came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court. The judgment is reported as 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 498, titled Wazir Chand vs. Ambaka Rani and another , the relevant extract whereof is reproduced as follows:-

¶24

“ 7. The legislative intent can also be clearly discerned from the fact that in the third proviso the Legislature advisedly did not use the expression “rent due” or “arrears of rent due”. Had the Legislature used either of these two expressions or any other similar expression in the third proviso, perhaps one could argue that the legislative intent was that the tenant should be held liable to pay the rent or the arrears of rent only. But by using the expression “amount due” in the third proviso the Legislature clearly intended that the arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs, as has been stipulated in the first proviso, should be paid by the tenant after the eviction order is passed against him if the tenant wanted to avoid the enforcement or the execution of the eviction order.”

¶25

In this respect, reference can also be made to 2007(1) SLC 88, titled Bilasi Ram Vs. Bhanumagi, relevant extract whereof reads as follows:

¶26

“4. 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

¶27

3

¶28

Chand v. Ambaka Rani and another, reported in 2005(2) Shim. L.C. 498, based upon and in the light of the ratio in the case of Madam Mohan and another v. Kirshan Kumar Sood, reported in 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 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 order, the only option available in law is to enforce the eviction order. Whether the shortfall is Rs.1/- or the shortfall is more than Rs.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 executed the eviction order.”

¶29

The sine-qua-non for maintaining an appeal before the First Appellate Court is deposit of the amount due i.e. arrears of rent alongwith interest & costs as contemplated in Section 14(2)(i) third proviso thereto. In Satish Kumar and Anr. Vs. Jagat Ram 2020(1) Shiml. LC 173 ., wherein it has been held that payment of rent due within the stipulated period of 30 days is a condition precedent and sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the Appellate Authority or else the order of Rent Controller has to be treated to have attained finality and the appeal must be dismissed. (See also Civil Revision No. 96/2023, t i tled Snowflake Education Society & Anr. vs. Raman Khanna , decided on 27^th November, 2024 and 2020 (1) SLC 173, titled Satish Kumar vs. Jagat Ram .

¶30

Benefits conferred on a tenant under the relevant statue can be enjoyed only on the basis of a strict compliance with the statutory provision. Procedure prescribed is to strictly complied with if benefit of the

¶31

4

¶32

beneficial provision is claimed by the tenant. Equitable consideration have no place in such matters. No lenient view can be taken in the matter

¶33

if the law in this respect has not been complied with. In this respect, reference can be drawn to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in 2005 (7) SCC 211, titled Atma Ram vs. Shakuntala Rani , relevant paragraph is reproduced as follows:-

¶34

“18. In E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy, (2003) 1 SCC 123 the provisions of T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 came up for consideration. The requirement of the Act was somewhat similar to the Rajasthan Rent Act and the A. P Rent Act considered by this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, (1996) 1 SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v J. Venkatarama Naidu, (1996) 6 SCC 228. Reiterating the view in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, (1996) 1 SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, (1996) 6 SCC 228 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 127 & 128, paras 5 & 8)

¶35

"The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters. The statute contains expression provisions. It prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a precondition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance with the procedure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i. e, to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. We are fortified in this view by the decisions of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal, (1996) 1 SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, (1996) 6 SCC 228 .

¶36

Admittedly the tenant did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8. The only submission that was advanced on behalf of the appellant was that since the deposit of rent had been made, a lenient view ought to be taken. We are unable to agree with this. The appellant failed to satisfy the conditions contained in Section 8.

¶37

5

¶38

Mere refusal of the landlord to receive rent cannot justify the action of the tenant in straight away invoking section 8 (5) of the Act without following the procedure contained in the earlier subsections i. e. sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the eviction order passed against the appellant with respect to the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent needs no interference."

¶39

19. It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the views that in Rent Control legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision."

¶40

Besides the aforesaid, in terms of law laid down in Hans Raj Khimta vs. Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur alias Sardarni Babli Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 3030 to conHans Rajstitute a valid tender, rent has to be paid directly to the landlord/respondents and not deposited in the Court. Even if deposited in the Court, intimation qua the deposit has to be given to the landlord/respondents within 30 days from the date of passing of the order. Not following the aforesaid course means that the deposit of arrears in Court is not a valid tender in terms of the Rent Act.

¶41

The eviction, in the case at hand, on the ground of arrears of rent had been passed by the Rent Controller on 31.10.2022. Order dated 20.09.2025 has been placed on record by the present petitioner. The said order was passed in the execution proceedings initiated against the present petitioner in pursuance to his eviction. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the arrears of rent due and payable after the eviction was

¶42

6

¶43

Rs.1.49,024/-. However, the petitioner had deposited Rs.1,14,500/- on 28.11.2022. Since there was a short deposit, therefore, the appeal before the First Appellate Court was not maintainable. Moreover, in terms of the law laid down in Hans Raj Khimta’s case , the deposit of the arrears, in the case at hand in Court was not a valid tender.

¶44

In view of above terms, present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶45

December 11, 2025 (KS)

¶46

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

Amrit Lal v. Ramdhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Lal v. Ramdhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Sh Tara chand and Ors.

Nand Lal Vs Raj Pal and Anr.

State of Hp and Others Vs Rameshwar Dass

Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs Bharti Sharma and Anr.

Yuvraj Kumar Vs State of Hp

Avinash Walia Vs Purshottam Lal (deceased) through LRs and Ors.