Shop Tenant Can Regain Possession Pending Appeal If He Deposits ₹7.75 Lakh; Himachal Pradesh HC Revives Appeal Over Unpublished Eviction Order

In brief

The question

Whether the 30-day limitation period for appealing an eviction order under Section 9(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, begins only upon publication of the order

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the Commissioner’s order of 23 September 2025.

It also directed

It directed the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeal on its merits, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 7,75,710 in arrears of rent within two weeks. Upon timely payment, possession of the shop was to be restored to the petitioner during the appeal; he was also required to pay rent regularly, failing which the University could charge penal rent.

The judgment identifies the appeal number inconsistently as No. 126/2025 and No. 106/2025.

01Facts

The Sub Divisional Collector, Solan, ordered the petitioner’s eviction for non-payment of rent on 10 November 2023.

pp. 2–5

The petitioner first appealed before the District Judge, Solan, but withdrew that appeal as not maintainable and then appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, seeking condonation of delay. The Commissioner rejected the application on 23 September 2025.

pp. 2–5

The judgment records that possession was taken by the University on 20 February 2026.

p. 7

02Issues

i.Whether the 30-day limitation period for appealing an eviction order under Section 9(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, begins only upon publication of the order

pp. 3–5

ii.Whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application to condone delay where the eviction order had not been published and the petitioner had initially approached the wrong forum

p. 5, 7

03Law Applied

Section 9(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 provides that an appeal from an order under Section 5 must be filed within 30 days from publication of that order, subject to the Commissioner’s power to entertain a late appeal for sufficient cause.

pp. 3–4

In Sarwan Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1737, the Supreme Court held that “publication” requires communication to the public and that limitation must be computed from the date specified by statute; personal service on the affected individual does not constitute publication.

pp. 5–7

The Court also considered the petitioner’s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

04Reasoning

The Court found that the eviction order had not been published, a fact admitted by both parties, and that the order itself did not indicate that publication had been directed.

pp. 4–5, 7

Since Section 9(2) makes publication the starting point for limitation, no ascertainable date for calculating the appeal period existed; the Commissioner should therefore have considered the application on its merits rather than reject it by reference to delay.

pp. 4–5, 7

The Court also took account of the petitioner’s initial filing before the District Judge on counsel’s incorrect advice, which caused further delay.

p. 7