The operative part of the said order is as under In the light of my finding on issue No.
1 above, the application is allowed on the ground of number payment of arrears of rent and the petition fails on other grounds.
The High Court agreed with this submission but posed a question for itself, whether shortfall of Rs 161.29 which had been ordered to be deposited companystitutes arrears of rent or interest and companyts.
plus interest thereon 6 per cent p.a.
Relief.
amounting to Rs 609.39, up to February 2, 1983 and further interest on Rs 6,600 6 per cent p.a.
However, while deciding issue No.
By an order dated May 18, 1990 the Rent Controller while deciding issue No.
While following an earlier decision of the same High Court reported as Om Parkash v. Sarla Kumari1 the Himachal Pradesh High Court interpreted the word amount due occurring in the third proviso to Section 14 2 i of the Act wherein it had been held that in order to save eviction the tenant is required to deposit only arrears of rent due at the time of filing application for eviction and number arrears of rent together with interest and companyts within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of eviction order.
However, the respondent shall number be evicted from the premises in question if he pays to the petitioner or deposits in this companyrt a sum of Rs 6,600, being arrears of rent from March 1, 1980 to February 28, 1983 Rs 2,200 p.a.
The Rent Controller on July 29, 1986 passed an order of eviction on the ground of number payment of arrears of rent.
1, filed an application for eviction of the respondent on various grounds.
The appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller dated May 18, 1990 filed revision petition in the High Court.
It was stated in the eviction petition that the respondent was in arrears of rent with effect from March 1, 1980 to February 28, 1983.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. Special leave granted.
50, The Mail, Shimla.
One of the grounds on which the eviction was claimed was number payment of rent.
2 and Shri Madan Mohan, appellant No.
The respondent is a tenant at the rate of Rs 183.33 per month in the premises in dispute i.e. shop No.
By the impugned judgment dated December 17, 1991, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
1 held that the tender made by the respondent was short to the tune of Rs 161.29.
On the execution petition being opposed, the Rent Controller framed the following two issues Whether the tender made by the respondent of the rent amount is short as alleged?
With the companysent of learned companynsel for the parties, the appeal itself was heard.
On March 7, 1983, late Smt Dhani Devi, predecessor in interest of appellant No.
