BILASI RAM Vs. BHANUMAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is an open and shut case. Rent petition filed under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide the Order passed by him on 11.11.2003, in which inter alia he directed the petitioner ­ tenant to pay arrears of rent calculated @ Rs.800/- per month, from 1.3.1998 along with 9% interest thereupon and costs assessed at Rs.29.50. The amount of arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate of Rs.800/- per month for the total period of 68 months 10 days was calculated at Rs.54,666/-. Interest @ 9% on the aforesaid arrears on a gradual scale of reduction was calculated at Rs.14,076/-. Adding to both, the amount of costs of Rs.29.50, the total amount due was calculated at Rs.68,771.50.

(2.) MRS . Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid calculations or the aforesaid total amount due. The Rent Controller in the impugned order records that the petitioner ­ tenant had deposited Rs.65,500/- and on that basis, the deposit fell short by Rs.3,271.50.

(3.) BY now it is well established, in the light of the authoritative pronouncements by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Wazir Chand vs. Ambaka Rani and another, reported in 2005 (2) Shim. L.C. 498, based upon and in the light of the ratio in the case of Madam Mohan and another vs. Krishan Kumar Sood, reported in 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 437, that the expression "amount due" occurring in the aforesaid third proviso includes the arrears of rent, the interest thereupon @ 9% per annum and the amount of costs. It is also a well settled proposition of law by now that if the tenant fails to deposit the amount due within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, the only option available in law is to enforce the eviction order. Whether the shortfall is Re.1/- or the shortfall is more than Re.1/-, if there is any shortfall in the deposit of the amount, the eviction order has to be executed, because by not depositing the amount due in its entirety, the tenant forfeits the concession granted to him under the aforesaid third proviso and the only option thereafter is to execute the eviction order.