WAZIR CHAND Vs. AMBAKA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BECAUSE of an incongruous situation having arisen, owing to an apparent conflict between an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court and a subsequent judgment by the Supreme Court, this Reference, to resolve the incongruity, has been referred to this Full Bench. The Division Bench judgment of this Court was in the case of Om Parkash v. Sarla Kumari, 1991(1) Sim LC 45 and the subsequent Supreme Court judgment was in the case of Madan Mohan v. Krishan Kumar Sood, 1993(1) RCR(Rent) 290 : 1994 Supp (1) SCC 437 : (1993 AIR SCW 743).

(2.) WHAT exactly is the point of controversy involved in this case ? The point of controversy involved for adjudication before us is directly relatable to two provisos forming part of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (1987 Act, for short). These are : the first proviso and the third proviso to Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of 1987 Act (hereafter these two provisos are to be referred to as the "first proviso" and the "third proviso", as the context may require). The relevant extract of Section 14 of 1987 Act, as would be applicable to our case is reproduced hereunder which reads thus :-

(3.) WHAT then is the meaning of the expression "amount due" as it has been used in the third proviso ? Does the expression "amount due" include or should it include the arrears of rent, (and if so up to and for what period) as well as interest upon the arrears of rent and the costs of the application, or does it or should it include only the arrears of rent (for whatever period), excluding from its ambit and applicability the interest element upon the arrears of rent and the costs of the application ? This precisely is the question of law which has been referred to this Full Bench for consideration and adjudication. The Division Bench judgment of this Court on this question of law in the case of Om Parkash v. Sarla Kumari, (1991(1) Sim LC 45) (supra) held as under :