Strict Compliance Is the Rule, Not Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tenant's Plea for Late Deposit of Rent Arrears

“Statutory Benefits Under Rent Control Law Cannot Be Claimed Without Fulfilling Pre-Conditions” – In a decisive verdict reinforcing procedural rigor under rent control legislation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a tenant's revision petition challenging the rejection of his application to deposit arrears of rent after an eviction order. The Court, speaking through Justice Bipin Chander Negi, held that any benefit under Section 14(2)(i), third proviso of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, is contingent upon strict and timely compliance with the statutory mandate – which includes deposit of entire dues within 30 days of eviction order, and valid tender of rent to the landlord.

The case, titled Avinash Walia v. Purshotam Lal (deceased) through LRs and others, turned on the core issue of whether the tenant could claim protection from eviction despite not fulfilling the procedural requirements under the Rent Act.

Compliance Is Not Optional: Deposit Must Include Rent, Interest, and Costs Within 30 Days

At the heart of the dispute was the third proviso to Section 14(2)(i) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, which grants tenants a limited lifeline even after an eviction order – provided they deposit the "amount due" within 30 days. However, as Justice Negi emphasized, the phrase “amount due” is not limited to just arrears of rent.

Citing the Full Bench judgment in Wazir Chand v. Ambaka Rani (2005), the Court reiterated:

“By using the expression ‘amount due’ in the third proviso the Legislature clearly intended that the arrears of rent along with interest and costs... should be paid by the tenant after the eviction order is passed against him if he wanted to avoid the enforcement or execution of the eviction order.”

The Court also reaffirmed that partial deposits or minor shortfalls—even of Re. 1—disqualify the tenant from invoking this protective provision, referring to the judgment in Bilasi Ram v. Bhanumagi (2007), where it was held:

“Whether the shortfall is Rs.1/- or more, if there is any shortfall in the deposit... the eviction order has to be executed.”

Tender to Landlord Before Court Deposit Is Mandatory: Procedural Steps Cannot Be Skipped

Justice Negi pointed to another critical procedural misstep: the tenant, even assuming he had attempted tender to the landlord, failed to issue intimation within the statutory 30 days, a requirement firmly laid down in Hans Raj Khimta v. Kanwaljeet Kaur (2016 HLJ 3030). In that case, the High Court had categorically ruled:

“Even if deposited in Court, intimation of the deposit has to be given to the landlord within 30 days... Not following the aforesaid course means that the deposit... is not a valid tender.”

In the present case, the eviction order was passed on 14 October 2024, but the tenant filed the application to deposit arrears only on 8 November 2024. Further, there was no intimation to the landlord about the court deposit within the 30-day statutory window.

The Court concluded: “Even if the arrears were refused by the landlord, the tenant had to intimate the deposit made in court within 30 days. Failure to do so invalidates the tender.”

No Place for Equity Where Law Is Express: Procedural Compliance Is Not a Mere Formality

Rejecting the tenant’s plea for leniency, the Court held that equitable considerations cannot override express statutory requirements in rent legislation. Referring to the Supreme Court's authoritative decision in Atma Ram v. Shakuntala Rani, (2005) 7 SCC 211, the Court reiterated:

“The benefits conferred on the tenants... can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters.”

Justice Negi further quoted: “If any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with that condition. If he fails to do so, he cannot take advantage of the benefit.”

Thus, the tenant's effort to deposit arrears without following proper tender procedures and without full statutory compliance was declared invalid.

Tenant Cannot Skip Procedural Steps and Expect Statutory Protection The Court's analysis was rooted in a series of precedents, including Satish Kumar v. Jagat Ram (2020), where it was held that payment of rent due within 30 days is a sine qua non for maintaining an appeal, and the eviction order attains finality otherwise.

In the present case, not only did the tenant fail to tender the rent directly to the landlord in a valid manner, but he also failed to provide intimation of deposit within time, and thus defaulted on every procedural requirement.

As the Court noted: “The sine-qua-non for maintaining an appeal... is deposit of the amount due i.e. arrears of rent along with interest & costs. The tenant failed to comply with this mandate.”

No Interference Warranted – Tenant Failed to Satisfy Legal Preconditions

Dismissing the revision petition, Justice Bipin Chander Negi refused to interfere with the Rent Controller’s order dated 17.12.2024, holding that the deposit of rent by the tenant was neither valid nor timely, and therefore, the eviction order stands executable.

The petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed, and the Court made it clear that compliance with rent control laws must be absolute and procedural steps cannot be treated as a mere formality.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2025