JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.: - This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Rant Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Una dated 3.8.1998. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition may be noticed thus:- Badri Nath (hereinafter referred to as the landlord), respondent in this petition, is the owner of Shop No.2400 at Main Bazar, Una. these premises are tenanted by Mohinder singh, petitioner in this petition and hereinafter referred to as the tenant. The premises were taken on rent by the tenant in the year 1968 at a monthly rental of Rs.50/- per month alongwith house tax of Rs.54/- per annum. Landlord filed a petition under Section 14(2)(i) of the Rent Act for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent due from the tenant on 5.9.1992. According to the landlord, the tenant failed to pay the tent from December, 1987. The tenant was informed that he is liable to pay rent w. e. f. 1.10.1987 in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Rent Act. It is further case of the landlord that the tenant inspite of demand did not pay the rent and told the landlord that he would ascertain the correct position from his lawyer and pay the rent only upto 30.11.1987. The landlord in his petition calculated the rent due taking into consideration the increase in rent contemplated under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act. 3. In reply, filed on behalf of the tenant, the petition is resisted. The case of the tenant is that the landlord had threatened the tenant with eviction. It is further case of the tenant that the landlord did not accept the rent inspite of the request made by the tenant. It is pleaded that the rent was paid to the landlord through the Rent Controller and the rent stands deposited upto 31.8.1992. In the rejoinder filed by the landlord, it is pleaded that the tenant has not paid the rent due w. e. f. 1.12.1987 and late deposit of the rent with the Rent Controller if any, is illegal and invalid. 4. In the rejoinder filed by the landlord, it is pleaded that the tenant has not paid the rent due w. e. f. 1.12.1987 and late deposit of the rent with the Rent Controller if any, is illegal and invalid. 4. Learned Rent Controller vide his orders dated 29.6.1996 took a view that rent due would not include the increased rent as contemplated under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act. According to the learned Rent Controller, increase in the rent is not automatic and no increase in rent to the landlord is permissible under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act unless the landlord gives notice to the tenant. The learned Rent Controller accordingly held that the landlord is only entitled to the rent which he was originally getting i.e. Rs.50/-. The learned Rent Controller proceeded to hold that the tenant is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month w. e. f. 1.12.1987 to 29.6.1996 and municipal taxes at the rate of Rs.54 per annum w. e. f. 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1996 amounting to Rs.486/-. The petition was allowed. It was directed that if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent determined by the learned Rent Controller, the eviction of tenant will not take place and the petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the orders of the learned Rent Controller, landlord filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Una. Learned Appellate Authority vide his impugned orders dated 3.8.1998 held that the landlord is entitled to receive the rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Rent Act and accordingly re-determined the arrears of rent taking into consideration increase under Section 5(2)(b)(ii) of the Rent Act. Feeling dis-satisfied with the orders of the learned Appellate Authority, tenant has filed this revision petition. 6. I have heard Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant and Shri Rejeev Sharma, learned counsel for the landlord. 7. The interesting question which arises for determination is whether the expression rent due under Section 14(2X0 of the Rent Act would include the increase in the rent as provided under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act. 8. 6. I have heard Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant and Shri Rejeev Sharma, learned counsel for the landlord. 7. The interesting question which arises for determination is whether the expression rent due under Section 14(2X0 of the Rent Act would include the increase in the rent as provided under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act. 8. The contention of Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant is that increase in rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Rent Act cannot be included in the rent which is due from the tenant for the purpose of Section 14(2)(i) of the Rent Act. To be fair to Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant, he candidly admitted that the tenant has no grievance so far the increase in rent is concerned, but the learned Appellate Authority, without an independent petition under Section 5 of the Rent Act could not have allowed the increase in the rent. 9. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Act prohibits eviction of a tenant save and except in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act. Sub-section (2) to Section 14 details the grounds on which eviction of a tenant can be sought by a landlord. One of the grounds in terms of clause (i) to this Sub-section, for the eviction of the tenant is that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due to the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. Section 14(1) and (2)(i) may be reproduced for convenience:- 14. Eviction of tenants. (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the controller for a direction in that behalf. (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 9 per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the rent within the time aforesaid: Provided further that if the arrears pertain to the period prior to the promulgation of this Act, the rate of interest shall be calculated at 6 per cent 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 tenant pays the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of order;" 10. Section 5(2) of the Rent Act provides that a landlord shall, in addition to increase in rent provided in this Act, be entitled to increase the rent of a building or land at the rate of 10% of the fair rent or the agreed rent, as the case may be, after every five years. Section 5 of the Rent Act may be re-produced for convenience:- "5. Revision of fair rent in certain cases. (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), when the fair rent of a building or rented land has been fixed under section 4, no further increase or decrease in such fair rent shall be permissible for a period of five years. Provided that the decrease may be allowed in cases where there is a decrease or diminution in the accommodation or amenities provided. Provided that the decrease may be allowed in cases where there is a decrease or diminution in the accommodation or amenities provided. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract, a landlord shall, in addition to increase in rent provided in this Act, be entitled to increase the rent of a building or land at the rate of 10%(percent) of the fair rent or the agreed rent, as the case may be, after every five years and such increase shall be,- (a) in a case where such a building or land has been let out for a period of five years or more immediately preceding the commencement of this Act - (i) first with effect from the date of such commencement; and (ii) again with effect from the expiry of the period of every five years from such commencement; and (b) where such a building or land has been let out before such commencement for a period shorter than five years and the maximum period within which such building or land remains let out extends beyond five years from the date of the commencement of such a tenancy - (i) first with effect from the date of expiry of five years from the commencement of such tenancy; (ii) again with effect from the date of expiry of the period of every five years from the date of which revision made under clause (i) takes effect. (3) Any dispute between the landlord and the tenant in regard to any increase or decrease in rent under this section shall be decided by the -Controller." A bare perusal of Section 5(1) shows that if fair rent of tenanted premises has been fixed under Section 4 of the Rent Act, landlord is not entitled to increase or decrease in such fair rent for a period of five years save and except where there is increase or diminution in the accommodation or amenities provided. However Section 5(2) provides that a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of tenanted premises at the rate of ten per cent of the fair rent i f determined or the agreed rent, as the. case may be, after every five years. However Section 5(2) provides that a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of tenanted premises at the rate of ten per cent of the fair rent i f determined or the agreed rent, as the. case may be, after every five years. Such increase shall be in case of premises which were tenanted five years or more immediately preceding the commencement of the Rent Act, firstly from the commencement of the date of the Act and again with effect from the expiry of five years from such commencement. Now, in the present case, admittedly the premises were tenanted in the year 1968 much before the coining into force of the Rent Act and, therefore, the landlord is entitled to 10 per cent increase in the agreed rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(2) (a)(i) and (ii) of the Rent Act. It is noticed that sub-section (2) of Section 5 mandates that landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of tenanted premises by ten per cent. Therefore, such increase is automatic at the discretion of the landlord and does not envisage any permission of the Rent Controller for such increase. Sub-Section (3) to Section 5 of the Rent Act specifically stipulates that any dispute between the landlord and the tenant in regard to any increase of decrease in the rent shall be decided by the Controller. The statutory increase being automatic does not contemplate any permission or order of the Rent Controller. It is only in case of dispute as to the quantum of increase in the rent that the same is subject to the decision of the Controller. It may further be notice that Section 6 of the Rent Act provides that landlord shall not be entitled to any increase in fair rent if such fair rent has been fixed by the Rent Controller save and except in case of some additions, improvements or alterations. But there is exception to this and that is the increase in the rent as provided under Section 5 of the Rent Act. Thus, the scheme of Sections 4,5 and 6 of the Rent Act show s that Rent Controller is competent to determine fair rent of tenanted premises at the instance of either the landlord or the tenant. But there is exception to this and that is the increase in the rent as provided under Section 5 of the Rent Act. Thus, the scheme of Sections 4,5 and 6 of the Rent Act show s that Rent Controller is competent to determine fair rent of tenanted premises at the instance of either the landlord or the tenant. Once fair rent is fixed by the Controller, under Section 4 of the Act, landlord cannot claim any further increase in such fair rent (save in case of additions, improvements and alterations etc.) However, there is an exception in terms of Section 5 of the Act which entitles a landlord to increase the rent of tenanted premises by ten per cent every five years. 11. As noticed earlier, a landlord, under Section 14(2) (i) of the Rent Act, can seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant fails to pay or tender the "rent due" from him in respect of the tenanted premises within fifteen days when it becomes due in terms of agreement of the tenancy and in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is due. Now, the question is whether "rent due" in Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 would include the increase in the rent as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Rent Act or not. Such increase, as already noticed, is permissible to the landlord without any orders from the Rent Controller. It is only if a dispute between the landlord and the tenant arises for increase or decrease of rent that such dispute is contemplated to be settled by the Rent controller. There can be situation where tenant disputes either the date of commencement of the tenancy or the quantum of rent, but tenant is not permitted to dispute the entitlement of the landlord to statutory increase of ten per cent of the fair rent or the agreed rent, as the case may be, after every five years. 12. The word "due" has variety of meanings depending on the context in which it is used. It has generally been defined to be that which is owed: that which custom, statute or law required to be paid. 12. The word "due" has variety of meanings depending on the context in which it is used. It has generally been defined to be that which is owed: that which custom, statute or law required to be paid. In the Shorter Oxford dictionary, Third Edition, the word "due" as an adjective, is stated to mean (i)......(ii) that which is due to anyone legally or morally (iii) that which is due by anyone legally or morally;(iv).....Expression "due" is defined by Webster Dictionary "that which is owed; that which custom, statute or law requires to be paid and that which anyone has right to demand, claim or possess". 13. Now, Section 5(2) of the Rent Act entitles that landlord to demand from the tenant statutory increase often percent in the rent every five years and the tenant is bounded to pay such statutory increase in die rent both legally. & morally. The expression "rent due" inclause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 in the circumstances will include the statutory increase as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Rent Act It is for the Rent Controller to determine the rent due if landlord files a petition seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of non-payment of rent which would include the statutory increase as contemplated under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act It cannot be the lintention of the Legislature to drive a landlord to the court first to get the Statutory increase of 10 per cent determined from the Rent Controller and if such increase rent is not paid, then again file a petition under Section 14(2) of the Rent Act for the eviction of the tenant. It will lead to multiplicity of proceeding. 14. There is nothing in the scheme of the Rent Act which prohibits a landlord from including the statutory increase of ten per cent in the agreed rent, under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act, while filing a petition under Section 14(2)(i) of the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller in proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Rent Act for the (eviction of tenant is obliged to determine the "rent due" taking into consideration the statutory increase under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act. 15. The Rent Controller in proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Rent Act for the (eviction of tenant is obliged to determine the "rent due" taking into consideration the statutory increase under Section 5(2) of the Rent Act. 15. In Madan Mohan v. Krishan Kumar Sood, 1994Supp.(l) SCC437, provisions of Section 14(2) came to be interpreted and it was observed:- "....The third proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 should also receive an interpretation which will safeguard the rights of both the landlord and tenant. The "amount due" occurring in the third proviso in the context will mean the amount due on and up to the date of the order of eviction. It will take into account not merely the arrears of rent which gave cause of action to file a petition for eviction but also include the rent which accumulated during the pendency of eviction petition as well. If the tenant has been paying the rent during the pendency of the eviction petition to the landlord, the "amount due" will be only arrears which have not been paid. The landlord as per the scheme of the section, cannot be worse off vis-a-vis a tenant who was good enough to deposit in court the "arrears of rent together with interest and costs on the first date of hearing. If the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted the result would be that the tenant will be better off by avoiding to pay the arrears of rent with interest and costs on the first date of hearing and prefer suffering order of ejectment after contest and then merely offer the amount due as mentioned in the application for ejectment to avoid eviction. This could not be the intention of the legislature." In Paragraph-15 of the judgment, it is observed thus:- "15. In such cases it will be advisable if the Controller while passing the order of eviction on the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section. 14 of the Act specifies the "amount due" till the date of the order and not merely leave it to the parties to contest if after passing of the order of eviction as to what was the amount due." In paragraph-17 of the judgment, their lordships observed:- “17. 14 of the Act specifies the "amount due" till the date of the order and not merely leave it to the parties to contest if after passing of the order of eviction as to what was the amount due." In paragraph-17 of the judgment, their lordships observed:- “17. Surely the legislature which made the Act could not have envisaged that after the parties finish off one round of litigation, the party should be relegated to another round of litigation for recovery of rent which accrued pendente lite. Whatever protection Rent Acts give they do not give blanket protection for "non-payment of rent". This basic minimum has to be complied with by the tenants. Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent, he can continue to enjoy the same without payment of rent." 16. True interpretation of the expression(s) "due rent" and "amount due" in sub-clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 and third proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14, both in the interest of the landlord and the tenant, is that while determining the "rent due" and "amount due" under sub-Section (2) (i) of Section 14, the Rent Controller shall take into consideration the statutory increase in rent under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Rent Act so claimed by the landlord. 17. In this case, it is noticed that the learned Rent Controller settled a specific issue in terms of issue No.3 to this effect and parties led evidence on this issue. The tenant cannot, in this revision petition, be permitted to say that the landlord ought to have filed an independent petition for the statutory increase in the agreed rent under Section 5 (2) of the Rent Act, moreso, when tenant has no grievance so far as the increase in rent is concerned. No other point is urged before me. There is no merit in this revision petition. The same is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed