JUDGMENT Leila Seth, Chief Justice.—-The respondent-landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on various grounds, inter alia, non-payment of rent. 2. It appears that the matter was listed thereafter before the Lok Adalat held at Solan on 5th May. 1991. Ms. Santosh Bansal wife of the petitioner-tenant who holds a general power of attorney on behalf of her husband, was present at the said Lok Adalat. She made a statement before the Lok Adalat that she was agreeable to pay the arrears of rent w. e. f. 1st December, 1987 to 30th November, 1989, after permissible increase, at Rs. 1,45.50 per month. She agreed that an order for eviction be passed on the ground of non-payment of rent amounting to Rs. 3,569. She said she would deposit the said amount within 30 days in full and final settlement. 3. The landlord Mr. Raunqi Ram then stated that he had heard the statement of the general attorney of the tenant and agreed to the same and gave up the other grounds for eviction. 4. It appears that the statements recorded by the Lok Adalat were later on endorsed by the Rent Controller on the same day and an order passed. It is not disputed that the parties did not appear before the Rent Controller but from the record it appears that their counsel did. 5. The petitioner has asserted that after the conciliation before the Lok Adalat she was under the impression that a date would be fixed for pronouncement of judgment and notice of this would be given to the parties or to the counsel. But when she went to Nalagarh on 4th June, 1991 to enquire about the proceedings from her Counsel she could not meet him as there was a local holiday. Consequently, on 5th June, 1991, she again went to Court and came to know that an order as well as a decree for eviction had been passed on 5th May, 1991 itself, As such, she immediately moved an application praying that she be allowed to deposit the arrears of rent. She got the order only after lunch and when she reached the bank it was after 2 p. m. and so she could not deposit the arrears of rent on that date but deposited them on the very next day i. e. 6th June, 1991. 6. She got the order only after lunch and when she reached the bank it was after 2 p. m. and so she could not deposit the arrears of rent on that date but deposited them on the very next day i. e. 6th June, 1991. 6. Subsequently, the landlord filed an execution petition against the petitioner for failure to deposit the arrears of rent within 30 days from the passing of the order. Since no notice of passing of the order I was given to the petitioner she moved an application praying that the proceedings be rectified and corrected. On 1st October, 1991, the Rent Controller, Nalagarh rejected the application on the ground that a perusal of the order dated 5th May, 1991 clearly shows that both sides had reconciled their differences through the agency of the Lok Adalat on 5th May, 1991 as a result of which an order had been made on the same date by the Rent Controller in the presence of Counsel for the parties, Mr. Kashmiri Lal and Mr. P. N, Bhanot. 7. It is this order which is challenged before me. Mr. R K Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since the petitioner was under the impression that only her statement had been recorded in the Lok Adalat and she would be informed about the actual date of the order, therefore, the arrears of rent could not be deposited within 30 days. It was only on 5th June, 199!, that she came to know that an order had, in fact, been passed on 5th May, 1991 and she deposited the arrears of rent immediately thereafter on 6th June, 1991. It is further contended that since the statements were recorded on 5th May, 1991 before the Lok Adalat at Solan, the order could not have been passed by the Rent Controller, Nalagarh at Solan on the same date. The prayer in the petition is that the Rent Controller, Nalagarh be directed to re-announce the order and the execution proceedings be quashed 8. There was no dispute that the statutory requirement of payment within 30 days is clear. The only question was whether the petitioner could have been misled on account of the fact that the conciliation was arrived at not in Court proceedings but in the course of the Lok Adalat. There was no dispute that the statutory requirement of payment within 30 days is clear. The only question was whether the petitioner could have been misled on account of the fact that the conciliation was arrived at not in Court proceedings but in the course of the Lok Adalat. There could be no doubt that the petitioner had every intention to make payment in accordance with the agreement arrived at and there was no reason for her to delay the payment. The fact that the petitioner went to meet her Counsel on 4th June, 1991 and could not do so on account of a local holiday was also not disputed. Subsequently, when she came to know that an order has been passed on the same date she moved the Court forthwith so that she could make the deposit and made the deposit immediately thereafter. 9. The purpose of Lok Adalats is to shorten litigation and bring about conciliation so that proceedings end in an amicable way and there is no delay and or appeal. It is the new process of settlement of disputes. Though the procedure is not formal and rigid it is new for litigants and Counsel. The Lok Adalat held at Solan was the second Lok Adalat held in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the first in Solan district Consequently, the petitioner could have been under the impression that a regular order would have to be passed in Court and at Nalagarh where the Rent Controller is permanently located and she would receive a notice in this connection No doubt, it appears from the record that her Counsel was present before the Rent Controller and, therefore, she should have been informed about the order having been passed on 5th May, 1991 itself. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it would appear to me that this is a case where in keeping with the spirit of the Lok Adalat, and the newness of the procedure adopted, she be shown some indulgence as she had made the payment as soon as she come to know of the order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case it would appear to me that this is a case where in keeping with the spirit of the Lok Adalat, and the newness of the procedure adopted, she be shown some indulgence as she had made the payment as soon as she come to know of the order. It is clear that the case was before the Lok Adalat and not before a regular Court and since the payment has been made on 6th June, I991 and a direction for payment was given on 5th June, 1991 though the matter was sorted out in the Lok Adalat on Mh May, 1991, there has been compliance of the order, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent is present in Court and I told him that he should not press for execution as this was a Lok Adalat case and the petitioner is willing to pay costs as a panacea for any inconvenience caused to him because of the payment having been made on 6th June instead of 5th June, but he was adamant and not willing to do so. 10. Consequently, instead of sending the matter back to the Rent Controller to reannounce the order dated 5th May, 1991, as prayed, 1 have considered the matter and hold that there has been compliance of the order within time. The civil revision is disposed of accordingly. However, I make no order as to costs. Order accordingly.