JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J —Mr. Justice P. D. Desai, then Chief Justice of this Court, referred the following question of law to a larger Bench by his order dated July 6, 1988: "Whether, on a true and proper construction of the third proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the expression the amount due therein occurring comprises the arrears of rent together with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on such arrears and the costs of the eviction petition as assessed by the Controller or as comprising only the rent due as found by the Controller?” 2. The expression amount due stood already interpreted by V. P. Gupta, J, in Kali Dass v. Swaran Singh, ILR (Himachal Series) (1980) 191. In para 28 (page 2C0) of this judgment it has been held that:— “ Naturally the amount due in the second proviso can only be interpreted as the amount which is calculated in accordance with the first proviso of section 14 (2) (i), /. e9 it will include arrears of rent payable on the date of application and interest up-to-date of actual payment of 6% per annum on such arrears of rent which were payable together with costs of application as assessed by Controller, Besides this amount the tenant will be liable to pay any other amount i e., costs etc. of the litigation which may be the result of final order of eviction. 3. It seems that the interpretation given by V. P. Gupta, J., did not find favour with P. D. Desai, C J., and he made the reference under consideration. 4. The expression amount due’ figures in the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987). Section 14 (2) reads as under i— "(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. 4. The expression amount due’ figures in the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987). Section 14 (2) reads as under i— "(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 per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the 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 tbe period prior to the appointed day, the rate of interest shall be calculated at the rate of 6 per cent per annum s 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 order ; or. " 5. The present Civil Revision was filed by the tenant Om Parkash against the order of Appellate Authority holding him liable for eviction from the premises in dispute for not depositing the total amount due. The deposit made by the tenant was found less by Rs. 135.85, The total amount due was calculated at Rs. 1,485. Out of this amount Rs. 1,080 were towards arrears of rent due from 1-10-1970 to 30-6-1979, Rs. 239.10 were towards interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum and Rs, 166 79 were towards costs as assessed by the Rent Controller. 6. 135.85, The total amount due was calculated at Rs. 1,485. Out of this amount Rs. 1,080 were towards arrears of rent due from 1-10-1970 to 30-6-1979, Rs. 239.10 were towards interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum and Rs, 166 79 were towards costs as assessed by the Rent Controller. 6. Before the Appellate Authority, the tenant had challenged the order of eviction passed against him and issue of warrant of possession of the disputed premises. The Rent Controller had found the amount deposited by the tenant deficient by Rs. 50. Admittedly, the tenant had deposited an amount of Rs- 1,350 on 13-10-981 during the pendency of the eviction petition The eviction order was later pressed on 21-10-1981 for non-payment of rent from 1-10-1977 to 12-7-1979. Mr. K. D. Sood, learn ed Counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner, argued that the expression amount due means rent due only and it does not include either interest or cost or any other charges. According to the learned Counsel, the amount due which a tenant is liable to pay within thirty days from the date of order of eviction to save himself from ejectment, is rent due and not arrears of rent and interest at the prescribed rate on such arrears of rent together with the costs of application assessed by the Rent Controller, as provided under the first and the second proviso to section 14 (2) (i). 7. Section 14 (2) (i) contemplates two stages in the eviction proceedings based on non-payment of rent due. The first stage comes on the first date of hearing of the eviction petition, after due service when the tenant appears and if he makes payment of arrears of rent, interest at the prescribed rate and cost as assessed by the Rent Controller, he absolves himself of the liability of not paying the rent due within the time prescribed. On such payment, the eviction proceedings are not pursued further. The second stage comes when eviction order is sought to be executed by (he landlord and the tenant seeks immunity from eviction on the ground that he has deposited the amount due within thirty days from the date of the order. On such payment, the eviction proceedings are not pursued further. The second stage comes when eviction order is sought to be executed by (he landlord and the tenant seeks immunity from eviction on the ground that he has deposited the amount due within thirty days from the date of the order. As the eviction order can only be passed by the Rent Controller if he is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due within the time prescribed, it is evident that the tenant is required to deposit only rent due and nothing more within thirty days from the date of the order to render the eviction order otiose. 8. In support of his contention Mr. K. D, Sood, learned Counsel, further urged that had the intention of the legislature been to saddle the tenant with liability of interest and cost and other charges, it would have been mentioned in the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i) as it has been done in the first proviso In the absence of any such provision, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to direct execution of eviction order on nonpayment of either interest on rent due or cost assessed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller may burden the tenant with costs while passing the eviction order on the ground of non-payment of rent due but the tenant is not liable to pay the amount of costs within thirty days from the date of eviction Order alongwith the rent due. The landlord is free to recover the amount of costs by having recourse to other legal remedies but cannot seek eviction on this count. According to Mr. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel, any other meaning to amount due will be against the legislative policy of the rent law to protect the interest of the tenants, 9. On the other hand, Mr. According to Mr. K. D. Sood, learned Counsel, any other meaning to amount due will be against the legislative policy of the rent law to protect the interest of the tenants, 9. On the other hand, Mr. Harish Behl, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord; has emphasised that the expression amount due used in the third proviso of section 14 (2) (i) comprises of rant due aid interest at tbe prescribed rate on the rent due as well as costs as assessed by the Rent Controller, According to him, if interest and costs are payable on the first date of hearing, as provided under the first proviso to section 14 (2) (i), it is not comprehensible that these are not payable by the tenant alongwith the amount of rent due within thirty days from the date of eviction order if he wants to save himself from eviction. Mr. Harish Behl, learned Counsel, however, was not able to show under which provision of law the Rent Controller is empowered to order payment of interest as well as costs and also to direct eviction for not paying these amount. 10. While giving meaning to the expression amount due and while examining whether this expression comprises of rent due, interest and/or costs, we must rely more on the nature and purpose of the rent legislation. Such an interpretation might result in a restricted or extended interpretation, but it is a permissible rule of interpretation of statute. To quote the remarks of Lord Hailsham, as given in Crosss Statutory Interpretation, 2nd Edition, at page 93: "There is nothing necessarily arbitrary or improper if the judges select restricted or extended interpretation of an Act based less on language than on the nature and purpose of the legislation." 11. Undoubtedly, the nature and purpose of the rent legislation is to protect the tenants from harassment and exploitation by the landlords but at the same time, the legitimate interests of the landlords are also to be safeguarded. Keeping in view this object, the expression amount due in cur opinion, would mean rent due only. This meaning will harmonize the provisions of section 14 (2) (i) and its third proviso. Keeping in view this object, the expression amount due in cur opinion, would mean rent due only. This meaning will harmonize the provisions of section 14 (2) (i) and its third proviso. Section 14 (2) (i) clearly lays down that eviction order can be passed against a tenant by the Rent Controller if he is satisfied that the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent due within the prescribed period. la other words, the tenant is liable to pay only the rent due if he is to save himself from eviction. It cannot be disputed that an eviction order for non-payment of rent is rot a decree for payment of arrears of rent but only a decree for possession of the premises in dispute. Under the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i), a further restriction has been imposed to the execution of such a decree that if the tenant pays the rent due within thirty days from the date of the eviction order he will not be evicted. If the expression amount due is interpreted as rent due plus interest and cost, it will be repugnant to section 14 (2) (i) which lays down that eviction order can only be passed for non-payment of rent due. Such a meaning will also defeat the very object of the statute. Moreover, such an interpretation will lean more in favour of the landlord instead of the tenant which will violate the primary purpose of Act No. 25 of 1937. The expression amount due does not comprise interest as it is not provided in the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i). The Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to direct eviction for non-payment of interest on the arrears of rent due in execution of eviction order. He does have the jurisdiction to deem the rent due to have been paid within the time prescribed in section 14 (2) (i) if the tenant pays the arrears of rent and interest at the rate given in the first and the second proviso to section 14 (2)(i), together with costs assessed by the Rent Controller, on the Grst date of hearing. On such payment, the Rent Controller closes the eviction proceedings. On such payment, the Rent Controller closes the eviction proceedings. Apparently, the payment of interest and costs has been provided to meet a situation where the tenant accepts his default in not paying the rent due within the prescribed period and does not contest the claim of the landlord in respect of arrears of rent. 12. On the other hand, the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i) meets an altogether different situation and intends to give protection to the tenant even after eviction order is passed against him for non-payment of rent due. By payment of amount due in respect of rent due within thirty days from the date of eviction order, the tenant can escape execution of eviction order. Thus viewed, the language of the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i), makes it clear that the tenant is not liable to pay interest on the arrears of rent due. Same interpretation holds good in respect of the liability of payment of costs alongwith rent due within thirty days from the date of eviction order if the tenant intends to save himself from execution thereof. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to harden the tenant with the liability of costs to save him from eviction, it would have been specifically provided as has been done not only in the first proviso to section 14 (2) (i) but in various other sections. For example, in sections 11 (5), 14 (7) and 2i (6), provision has been made to burden the defaulting party with compensation or fine in order to make good the damage caused to the other party. 13. With these observations, we answer the reference as under:— "The expression the amount due occurring in the third proviso to section 14 (2) (i) comprises only the arrears of the rent due and not the arrears of rent together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on such arrears and the cost of eviction petition as assessed by the Controller." 14. The Revision Petition may be placed for hearing before a learned single Judge for disposal in due course. Order accordingly. -