Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 280 (HP)

HARJEET SINGH v. DEVINDER KISHORE BANSAL

2013-04-09

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGEMENT KULDIP SINGH, J. 1. THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller-I at Nahan in Execution Petition No.14/10 of 2011. 2. THE controversy involved in the petition is very short. The relevant part of the impugned order is as follows:- "This is a case based on pure mathematical calculation. The order was passed on 2.5.2011 and 30 days were to complete on 26-06-2011. The amount could have been deposited on or before 26-06-2011 i.e. beyond the period of 30 days. It is now immaterial as to whether it was Sunday on 26.06.2011 or not, as there was clear cut direction to deposit the amount within 30 days and the tenant could not have taken the risk of waiting for last date to come. Admittedly, the amount has been deposited after expiry of 30 days from the date of the order and, therefore, this deposit will not effect the execution petition at all. Since the deposit of rent has not been done within 30 days from the date of the order, therefore, tenant is liable to be ejected in compliance to the eviction order passed on 27- 05-2011. Consequently, objections are liable to be dismissed and warrant of vacant possession of the premises is ordered to be issued for 29.11.2012. Steps be taken within seven days." The perusal of impugned order reveals that ejectment order on the grounds of arrears of rent was passed on 27.5.2011. The amount was deposited on 27.6.2011. The challan was passed on 25.6.2011 but amount could be deposited in the bank on 27.6.2011 as 26.6.2011 was Sunday. 3. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per third proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short Act) the petitioner could deposit arrears of rent upto 26.6.2011 as ordered by learned Rent Controller on 27.5.2011 but on 26.6.2011 it was Sunday and therefore, amount could not be deposited in the bank even though challan for depositing the amount was got passed on 25.6.2011. In these circumstances, deposit of the amount due on 27.6.2011 is valid, legal. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. In these circumstances, deposit of the amount due on 27.6.2011 is valid, legal. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. He has submitted that 30 days period prescribed in third proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act is statutory period and it cannot be enlarged. 4. THE admitted facts are that ejectment order was passed on 27.5.2011, the amount due calculated by learned Rent Controller was deposited by petitioner on 27.6.2011. It was Sunday on 26.6.2011. The Section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1968 is as follows:- "Computation of time:- Where, by any Himachal Pradesh Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act, or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in the due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court or office is open." The Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act has been considered in Padam Nabh Sharma vs. Balwant Rai Gotra 1993 (2) SLC 170 wherein it has been held as follows:- Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act is pari materia to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, which has been interpreted by Supreme Court in the case of (HH Raja) Harinder Singh v. S. Karnail Singh and others, in following terms:- "...Broadly stated, the objection of the Section is, to enable a person to do what he could have done on a holiday, on the next working day. Where, therefore, a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a court or office, and that period expires on a holiday, then according to the section the act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the court or office is open. For that section to apply, therefore, all that is requisite is that there should be a period prescribed, and that period should expire on a holiday...." 5. THE period of 30 days for depositing amount due as per ejectment order dated 27.5.2011 was upto 26.6.2011 but on 26.6.2011 it was Sunday. For that section to apply, therefore, all that is requisite is that there should be a period prescribed, and that period should expire on a holiday...." 5. THE period of 30 days for depositing amount due as per ejectment order dated 27.5.2011 was upto 26.6.2011 but on 26.6.2011 it was Sunday. The petitioner on 27.6.2011 has deposited the amount due as held in the ejectment order. In view of Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act deposit of amount due on 27.6.2011 immediately after 26.6.2011 being Sunday is valid compliance of the ejectment order. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied Bilasi Ram vs. Bhanumagi 2006 (3) S.L.J.(H.P) 2011 that period of 30 days cannot be extended. In Bilasi Ram implication of Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1968 has not been considered. 6. IT is not the case of the respondent that amount deposited is short. In view of above discussion, the learned Rent Controller has erred in holding that ejectment order is executable. Thus, impugned order is not sustainable. The petition is allowed. Order dated 15.10.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller-I at Nahan in Execution Petition No.14/10 of 2011 is set aside. The deposit of arrears of rent by petitioner on 27.6.2011 as held in Rent Petition No.2/2 of 2007 decided on 27.5.2011 by learned Rent Controller (1), Sirmaur at Nahan is valid and therefore, ejectment order dated 27.5.2011 on the ground of arrears of rent is not executable. The pending application is also disposed of. No costs.