Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an eviction application filed by the landlords against their tenant for non-payment of rent. The tenant, Krishan Kumar Sood, was renting a shop in Shimla at a rate of Rs 183.33 per month. The landlords claimed that the tenant was in arrears from March 1, 1980, to February 28, 1983, amounting to Rs 6,600. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on July 29, 1986, but allowed the tenant to avoid eviction by depositing the arrears within 30 days. The tenant deposited Rs 8,500 on August 13, 1986, which the landlords argued was insufficient. The Rent Controller later found the deposit short by Rs 161.29 but granted the tenant additional time to make up the deficiency. The landlords challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the Controller lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for payment as the Act specified a 30-day limit. The High Court dismissed the landlords' revision petition, interpreting 'amount due' as only the arrears of rent, excluding interest and costs. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this interpretation, stating that 'amount due' should include all dues up to the eviction order date. The Court emphasized that the tenant must comply with the eviction order to avoid eviction and that the Controller's order was valid. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Rent Controller to issue warrants for the tenant's eviction, reinforcing the principle that tenants must fulfill their payment obligations to avoid eviction.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Non-Payment of Rent - Interpretation of 'Amount Due' - Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, Section 14(2)(i) - The court clarified that the term 'amount due' includes not only arrears of rent but also interest and costs, thus ensuring that tenants cannot evade eviction by partial payments. Held that the tenant's failure to pay the complete amount led to the upholding of the eviction order (Paras 11-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's deposit was sufficient to avoid eviction under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and the Rent Controller's order, directing the eviction of the tenant for non-payment of rent.
Law Points
- Eviction
- Rent Control
- Non-Payment of Rent
- Jurisdiction of Rent Controller
- Interpretation of 'Amount Due'
