Chaman Thakur vs Randhir Rana

Sandeep Sharma, J

Instant revision petition filed under S.24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter, 'Act') lays challenge to order dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I-cum-appellate authority, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 69 of 2018, titled Chaman Thakur vs. Randhir Rana, affirming the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.3, Shimla, whereby an application under S.21 of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Rules, 1990 (hereinafter, 'Rules') having been filed by the petitioner-tenant, seeking therein permission to deposit the rent in the court, came to be dismissed.

On taking cognizance of the grounds taken in the revision petition, this Court issued notice to the respondent vide order dated 5.11.2020, but despite service, he has chosen not to come present, as such, he is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds that since the respondent-landlord (hereinafter, 'landlord') refused to accept the rent from the tenant and also withheld water supply, tenant allegedly made an attempt to give cheque amounting to Rs. 32,000/- to the landlord on account of arrears, which he refused to accept. Since the landlord refused to accept the cheque amounting to Rs. 32,000/- on account of arrears of rent, tenant by way of petition under S.21 of the Act, sought permission of the learned Rent Controller, Court No.3, Shimla to deposit an amount of Rs. 32,000- in the court by way of demand draft. Since, aforesaid application having been filed by the tenant came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings.

Having taken note of the fact that the tenant in his application neither specifically pleaded about the mode and manner in which he made an attempt to pay sum of Rs. 32,000/- nor proved the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned court below inasmuch as rejection of prayer made on behalf of the petitioner qua deposit of arrears of rent in the court is concerned, however, there appears to be considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the application seeking therein permission to deposit rent in the court was dismissed by court below, demand draft annexed with the application ought to have been returned to the petitioner.

Careful perusal of order dated 13.11.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller reveals that though the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application but directed the Nazir to keep the amount in the fixed deposit. Once, no eviction proceedings, if any, were pending in the court below, that too, on account of arrears of rent, there was no occasion for the court below to retain the aforesaid amount, especially when prayer having been made on behalf of tenant for deposit of rent in the court was rejected. Once the application, seeking therein permission to deposit the rent in the court is rejected, amount, if any, sought to be deposited or tendered in the court by way of demand draft, cannot be said to be valid tender of arrears of rent. In the normal circumstances, court, after rejection of application as referred to above, ought to have ordered refund of amount to the tenant.

Consequently, in view of above, present revision petition is disposed of with the observation that the amount ordered to be deposited by the Court vide impugned order dated 13. 11.2019, shall be considered to be deposited towards arrears of rent, if so, held by learned Rent Controller in the eviction proceedings, if any, initiated at the behest of landlord on the ground of arrears of rent.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.