PAWAN KUMAR Vs. SUKH DEVI RAJ SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.