JUDGMENT (Surinder Singh, J.) - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 30.12.2002 of learned Rent Controller, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the execution petition No. 2/98 filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed. 2.In brief facts are that the petitioner herein had filed a petition for the eviction of the respondents with respect to the land measuring 280.57 square meters, comprised in Khasra No. 884, situated in Up-Muhal and Mauza Dharamshala on old Chhari road located in Ward No. 4 of Municipal Committee Dharamshala. 3.The aforesaid premises were rented out about 50 years ago by the petitioner herein, to Tulsi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 5/-. The petitioner filed the eviction petition against the respondents under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, in short the Act, on the following grounds :- (a) Non-payment of the rent for the period w.e.f. 1.1.1977 to 30.4.1988. (b) Sub-letting. (c) Bona fide requirement of the landlord for construction; and (d) Bona fide requirement of the landlord for the personal use and occupation. 4During the pendency of the petition Tulsi Ram and his wife Jagdamba Devi was brought on record, having succeeded to his tenancy. 5The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition, on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of sub-letting to respondent No 2 6The respondent No 1 tenant deposited the amount of Rs 990/- with interest, as per the orders of the learned Rent Controller within 30 days and filed an appeal against the order of eviction, before the Appellate Authority. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal CMA No. 41-D/XIV/1993 vide its order dated 24.3.1994 on the grounds of arrears of rent but rejected, on the ground of sub-letting. During the pendency of appeal, the tenant/appellant deposited the amount of Rs. 335/-. 7.The learned Appellate Authority while holding the respondent No. 1 in arrears of rent held that the respondents-tenant had failed to deposit the entire ‘amount due’ i.e. upto the passing of order by the Rent Controller, within the stipulated period of 30 days in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan and another v. Krishan Kumar Sood, 1994 Suppl.(1) SCC 437 thus she was therefore, liable to be ejected, on the ground of non-payment of the rent. 8.Respondent No. 1 (tenant) thereafter assailed the order of the Appellate Authority in Civil Revision No. 134 of 1994 in the High Court. The revision petition was allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside, on the ground that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was not legally required to be made at that stage of proceedings. It was clarified that while executing order passed by the learned Rent Controller for non-payment of the rent, matter regarding “amount due” as ordered by the learned Rent Controller can be gone into by him 9.The petitioner herein, filed the execution petition No. 2 of 1998, against respondent No. 1, for executing the order of the eviction, on the ground of non-payment of “amount due”, which comes to Rs. 1220/-. 10.The respondent No. 1 filed the objection petition contenting that she had already deposited the ‘rent due’ as per the order dated 3.5.1993 passed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, the execution petition was not maintainable. The executing Court vide its order dated 30.12.2002, held that the respondent-tenant has deposited the entire “amount due”, to the tune of Rs. 990/- with statutory interest, therefore, the execution petition was dismissed. 11.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, the petitioner-landlord filed the present petition under Section 24(5) of the Act, assailing the orders of the executing Court, on the grounds that the ‘amount due’ occurring in the third proviso to Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act in the content means “the amount due on and upto the date of eviction, as held in Madan Mohan’s case (supra), which was also followed in Wazir Chand v. Ambaka Rani and another, 2005(2) Shim.L.C. 498 : 2005 (Suppl.) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) F.B. 141. 12.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have examined the record. 13.In fact the landlord-petitioner had claimed the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1978 to 30.4.1988 which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller to the tune of Rs. 620/- with interest @ 6% per annum upto 17.8.1987 and thereafter @ 9% per annum with cost, quantified at Rs. 100/-. The total amount of Rs. 990/- was admitted to have been deposited by the respondent within 30 days of the said order, which fact has not been disputed. What is disputed is that there was a short fall of Rs. 100/-. The total amount of Rs. 990/- was admitted to have been deposited by the respondent within 30 days of the said order, which fact has not been disputed. What is disputed is that there was a short fall of Rs. 230/- because the arrears of rent uptill the date of order eviction i.e. 3.5.1993 alongwith interest and cost was not deposited in view of the judgment in Madan Kumar’s case, thus it fell short of Rs. 230/- 14.On the perusal of the record, it is apparent that on 13.1.1994 during the pendency of appeal the respondent No. 1 sought permission to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 335/- rent with interest w.e.f. 1.5.1988 to 31.12.1993 which was allowed without prejudice to the rights of the parties by the learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 13.1.1994 passed on the said application. The said amount was deposited and note also appears to this effect in the zimni order dated 14.1.1994. The Treasury Challan showing the deposit is on page 71 of the file of learned Appellate Authority. 15.In Smt. Asha Gupta v. Yash Paul, 2000(3) Shim.L.C. Hon’ble Chief Justice C.K. Thakkar of this Court, as he then was, faced almost with a similar proposition, while taking the note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madan Kumar’s case (supra), held that once the order was passed by the Rent Controller directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and the order is complied with and the Appellate Authority directed him to pay the entire amount within a stipulated period of 30 days, the order required to be complied with, was that of the Appellate Authority, which was done in that case. Therefore, it was held that the contention of the landlady that the order passed by the Rent Controller was not legal and in accordance with law, did not survive, as the said order merged with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. As the order passed by the Appellate Authority was complied with, the tenant has not liable to eviction. Since the order of Rent Controller was clear and was obeyed by the tenant, he cannot be evicted. Thus, it can not be said that any illegality has been committed by the Appellate Authority in not granting a prayer of eviction against the tenant. Since the order of Rent Controller was clear and was obeyed by the tenant, he cannot be evicted. Thus, it can not be said that any illegality has been committed by the Appellate Authority in not granting a prayer of eviction against the tenant. Because, at both the stages i.e. at the stage of passing the order by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority, payment of rent was made by the tenant, his case did not fall within the mischief of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. He was, therefore, not liable to be evicted from the suit premises for non-observance of Section 14(2) of the Act. 16.In the case in hand, the rent alongwith interest and cost was paid by respondent No. 1 as per the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. In appeal, the said respondent No 1 had deposited the balance “amount due” during the pendency of lis. On merits, the learned Appellate Authority on the basis of ratio of judgment Supreme Court in Madan Kumar’s case (supra), came to the conclusion that the respondent-tenant was supposed to deposit the “amount due” i.e. the rent, interest and costs uptill the order of date of eviction to which she had already deposited as aforesaid. Therefore, in my opinion the execution petition filed by the landlord-petitioner does not survive, as such, its dismissal for the reasons aforesaid is upheld. M.R.B. ———————