JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J.: Notice was issued in this Revision Petition by the Court on 7th October, 2004 and interim order was also passed on that day staying the execution of order of eviction passed by Rent Controller on 29th November, 2003 subject to the revision petitioner depositing the arrears of rent as have been mentioned in the said order. 2. Mr. Kuldip singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn my attention to the 3rd proviso to subjection (2) of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 which stipulates and lays down that if within 30 days from the date of order the tenant against whom the Controller has passed the order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent due from him, pays the amount due, he shall not be evicted as a result of such eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. In this case, as noticed, the Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on 29th November, 2003. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before the learned Appellate Authority but the appeal was dismissed on 4th September, 2004. 3. Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority had, during the pendency of the appeal, stayed the execution of impugned order of Rent Controller and I do not at all wish to join issue with Mr. Kaushik on the merit or relevance of the stay order granted by the Appellate Authority and I will go along with Mr. Kaushiks argument that because of stay order granted by the Appellate Court, the liability upon the tenant to pay the amount due within thirty days from the date of the order passed by the Rent Controller should have been held or deemed or considered to be in abeyance, even though this causal observation should not be construed as any authoritative pronouncement on any proposition of law because I am just going along with Mr. Kaushiks argument (as it would later on turn out) the tenant ultimately had failed to deposit the amount due in time. 4. Be that as it may, Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal on 4th September, 2004. Kaushiks argument (as it would later on turn out) the tenant ultimately had failed to deposit the amount due in time. 4. Be that as it may, Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal on 4th September, 2004. Based upon the aforesaid observation, (if on no other ground) the period of thirty days would start running at least from the date of dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority because it is undisputed proposition of law that order of Rent Controller would ultimately merge with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. Without being detained on the disputed question of law the tenant had deposited the amount within thirty days from the date of order passed by the Rent Controller or whether the law permitted him to deposit this amount from the date of dismissal of appeal, the fact remains that in the ultimate analysis at least the period of thirty days should start running from 4th September, 2004, the date the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 5. It is at this stage that relevance of the order dated 7th October, 2004 passed by this Court in this Revision Petition staying the execution of the order dated 29th November, 2003 passed by the learned Rent Controller subject to the deposit of arrears of rent comes into play. Undoubtedly, the order dated 7th October 2004 passed by this Court would operate prospectively. This order by its very language, on its plain reading, did not operate and cannot be termed to operate retrospectively. This order does not say so specifically and even otherwise it cannot ratify an illegality which had been committed before the passing of this order. I am saying so because the liability to pay the amount due fell upon the petitioner-tenant from the date the appeal was dismissed, that is, on 4th September, 2004 and in accordance with the mandatory and binding requirement of law as contained in 3rd proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, the liability was to pay the amount within thirty days from that date if the tenant desired to avoid eviction. 6. The amount, therefore, had to be paid before 3rd October, 2004. Undoubtedly, by that time, neither this Court nor any other court had granted any relief, interim in nature or otherwise in favour of the petitioner. The liability, therefore, subsisted all through. 6. The amount, therefore, had to be paid before 3rd October, 2004. Undoubtedly, by that time, neither this Court nor any other court had granted any relief, interim in nature or otherwise in favour of the petitioner. The liability, therefore, subsisted all through. The liability was not held in abeyance nor was it temporarily or otherwise stopped. The only way the tenant-petitioner could avoid eviction was to pay the amount due by the 3rd October, 2004. He did not do so. Instead he waited for this court to pass the aforesaid order on 7th October, 2004. In the view that I have taken that order could be of no avail to the petitioner because it was passed much after the event had taken place. By the morning of 4th October, 2004, the petitioner had incurred the liability of eviction because he had frittered away the advantage of avoiding his eviction by making the use of or availing the benefit given to him by law under 3rd proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. The order dated 7th October, 2004 could not have come to the rescue of the petitioner because it was admittedly passed well beyond thirty days from the day the thirty days period started running. 7. On the basis of. aforesaid reasons, therefore, since the petitioner has now rendered himself liable for eviction, keeping this Revision Petition alive or pending would serve no useful purpose at all because the order of learned Rent Controller having assumed finality and the petitioner having rendered himself liable for eviction, no relief can be given to the petitioner in this petition. 8. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. CMP No. 285 of 2004 9. Interim order dated 7th October, 2004 is vacated and the application is dismissed.