Civil Revision No. 137 of 2012-E. Case: Sh. Harjeet Singh Vs Sh. Devinder Kishore Bansal. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberCivil Revision No. 137 of 2012-E
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate
JudgesKuldip Singh, J.
IssueHimachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1968 - Section 10, 9; Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14
Judgement DateApril 09, 2013
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court


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. 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.

2. 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. 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT