Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 257 (HP)

SATYA DEVI v. DARSHAN SINGH

2013-04-06

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT KULDIP SINGH, JUDGE - 1. THE prayer made in the petition is that judgment dated 7.1.2012 passed by learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 06- RA/14 of 2011 and judgment dated 14.6.2010 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib in Rent Petition No. 2/2 of 2007 may be quashed and set-aside. 2. THE petition is confusing. However, it emerges from the petition that Rent Petition No. 2/2 of 2007 was filed by respondent against petitioner for her ejectment under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short 'Act') on the ground of arrears of rent. The respondent claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from July, 2005 till the filing of the petition which was filed on 3.12.2007. The respondent had claimed Rs.60,000/- arrears of rent from the petitioner. The claim of the respondent was denied by the petitioner, she pleaded rent Rs.1000/- per month which has been paid upto 1.6.2006 but thereafter the respondent has refused to accept the rent. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on 14.6.2010 and held that rate of rent is Rs.1000/- per month of the premises. It has been held that the rent from August, 2006 to 1.6.2010 is due and payable at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month amounting to Rs.47,000/- by petitioner to respondent. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.47,000/- arrears of rent within 30 days from the date of order failing which the petitioner shall be liable to be evicted from the premises. 3. IT appears the petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 176/6 of 2010 under Section 151 CPC for allowing her to deposit the rent from August 2006 onwards as directed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 2/2 of 2007 decided on 14.6.2010. This application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 15.2.2011.The petitioner filed rent appeal No. 06/RA/14 of 2011 under Section 24 of the Act against the order dated 15.2.2011 passed in CMA No. 176/6 of 2010. The appeal has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority-I on 7.1.2012. 4. HEARD. There is nothing on record to show that the judgment dated 14.6.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 2/2 of 2007 was assailed in appeal, hence judgment dated 14.6.2010 has attained finality. The appeal has been dismissed by learned Appellate Authority-I on 7.1.2012. 4. HEARD. There is nothing on record to show that the judgment dated 14.6.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 2/2 of 2007 was assailed in appeal, hence judgment dated 14.6.2010 has attained finality. It appears from the order dated 15.2.2011 that the petitioner filed application to deposit the rent in terms of the judgment dated 14.6.2010 on 19.7.2010. This application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 15.2.2011 on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the time. The order dated 15.2.2011 has been assailed in appeal by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority-I on 7.1.2012. The third proviso to clause (i) of sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act provides that the tenant against whom the Controller has made an order of 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. In Madan Mohan and another vs. Krishan Kumar Sood 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 437, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 'amount due' occurring in third proviso to clause (i) of sub section 2 of Section 14 and held that the 'amount due' occurring in the third proviso in the context will mean the amount due on and upto 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. The Rent Controller has passed the order of ejectment on 14.6.2010. In order to avoid eviction, the judgment dated 14.6.2010 was required to be complied in terms of the third proviso to clause (i) of sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act. 5. THE application for depositing the rent was filed on 19.7.2010 or after 30 days of ejectment order dated 14.6.2010 which is not in consonance with the third proviso to clause (i) of sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act. The Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the statutory time provided in the third proviso. 5. THE application for depositing the rent was filed on 19.7.2010 or after 30 days of ejectment order dated 14.6.2010 which is not in consonance with the third proviso to clause (i) of sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act. The Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to extend the statutory time provided in the third proviso. The Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application No. 176/6 of 2010 on 15.2.2011. The Appellate Authority has committed no error in affirming the order dated 15.2.2011. No jurisdictional error has been pointed out. There is no merit in the petition, hence dismissed, so also the pending application.