Mere Deposit in Court Is Not Valid Tender—Intimation to Landlord Within 30 Days Is Mandatory: H.P. High Court Rejects Tenant’s Bid to Save Eviction via Flawed Rent Deposit

"Benefits Under Rent Act Flow Only from Strict Compliance with Procedure, Not From Equitable Claims”, In a firm reiteration of the principle that statutory rights under rent control laws must be earned through precise compliance, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a tenant seeking to avoid eviction by depositing arrears of rent after the eviction order. The Court, while upholding the rejection of the tenant's application by the Rent Controller, ruled that failure to validly tender the rent and notify the landlord within the stipulated 30-day period was fatal to the tenant’s claim for statutory protection.

The case, Avinash Walia v. Purshotam Lal (deceased) through LRs and Others, arose under Section 14(2)(i), third proviso of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, which provides a tenant a narrow window of 30 days from the date of eviction order to pay the "amount due" and thereby avoid eviction. However, the Court held that the tenant's non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements disentitled him to any relief.

"Mere Deposit in Court Is Not Valid Tender—Intimation to Landlord Within 30 Days Is Mandatory"

The Court held that the petitioner's failure to tender rent directly to the landlord or to issue intimation of court deposit within the 30-day period following the eviction order dated 14.10.2024 rendered his application non-maintainable.

Justice Bipin Chander Negi referred to the ruling in Hans Raj Khimta v. Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur, where it was held:

“Even if the tenant deposits the arrears in Court after refusal by the landlord, such deposit is not valid unless the landlord is intimated within 30 days of the eviction order.”

In this case, the petitioner's application for deposit was filed only on 08.11.2024, and no evidence of prior intimation to the landlord was placed on record. Moreover, the bank draft was made in the name of the Court and not the landlord, further invalidating the tender.

"Amount Due Means Rent + Interest + Costs—Even Re. 1 Shortfall Defeats Tenant's Claim"

Addressing the scope of the term “amount due” under Section 14(2)(i), the Court relied on the Full Bench ruling in Wazir Chand v. Ambaka Rani (2005) and the judgment in Bilasi Ram v. Bhanumagi (2007) to clarify that:

“The tenant must deposit not only arrears of rent, but also interest (9% per annum) and costs, all within 30 days of the eviction order. Even a minor shortfall—of Re. 1—renders the statutory protection unavailable.”

The Court held that this interpretation was binding and had become settled law, leaving no scope for equity or discretion where there was procedural non-compliance.

"Strict Compliance Is a Sine Qua Non—Rent Law Leaves No Room for Equitable Discretion"

Rejecting the tenant’s plea that the landlord had refused to accept the rent and thus a lenient view should be taken, the Court ruled that equitable considerations have no role in matters governed by strict statutory conditions.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani (2005) 7 SCC 211, the Court observed:

“It is well settled that benefits under rent laws are available only on the basis of strict compliance with statutory provisions. A tenant cannot skip steps and later claim leniency on equitable grounds. The procedure is mandatory and must be followed step by step.”

Justice Negi further emphasized: “The tenant cannot straightaway jump to the last step, i.e., to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after earlier steps like tender to landlord and intimation are complied with.”

Application Rejected, Bank Draft Returned, and Eviction Upheld

Detailing the timeline, the Court noted that the eviction order was passed on 14.10.2024, while the tenant’s application for deposit was processed only on 13.11.2024 and listed before the Court on 19.11.2024. The final order rejecting the tenant’s application and returning the bank draft was passed on 17.12.2024.

Critically, even if the tenant had made an informal tender, no statutory compliance was made in terms of notice or proper deposit, as required by the Rent Act and binding precedents.

Hence, the Court concluded: “There was no valid tender or intimation within the 30-day period. The statutory requirements were not met. Therefore, the tenant cannot be permitted to retain possession of the premises.”

Eviction Order Final – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed

Upholding the Rent Controller's decision dated 17.12.2024, the Himachal Pradesh High Court found no error or illegality in rejecting the tenant’s application for deposit of arrears. The eviction order dated 14.10.2024 was thus confirmed and held to be enforceable.

All pending applications in the revision petition were also disposed of.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2025