Judgment :-

A.K. Patnaik, J.

Leave granted.

2. These are appeals against the common order dated 02.09.2011 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Revision Nos.179, 180 and 181 of 2008.

3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant let out shops in premises No.5 Cart Road, Shimla (for short “the building”) to the respondents. The appellant filed applications under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) before the Rent Controller, Shimla, for eviction of the respondents from the building on grounds inter alia that he bona fide required the building for purposes of addition and alteration of the building or rebuilding. The respondents filed their replies before the Rent Controller denying that the appellant required the building for additions and alterations or rebuilding. The Rent Controller framed an issue as to whether the building was required bona fide by the appellant for rebuilding or reconstruction. The appellant examined an official of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, in support of his case that a plan for rebuilding/ reconstruction had been sanctioned and also a Civil Engineer in support of his case that the building was in dilapidated condition and required to be reconstructed. The Rent Controller after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that though the sanction plan of the building was not a requirement of the Act, it is a circumstance to establish the bonafide of the appellant to seek eviction for the purpose of rebuilding or reconstruction and also held that the building was old and the appellant was in the occupation of second floor of the building and for rebuilding or reconstruction, the respondents have to vacate the building and accordingly allowed the applications of the appellant for eviction of the respondents from the building. The respondents filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, Shimla against the order of eviction but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals.

4. The respondents then filed the Civil Revisions before the High Court and by the impugned common order maintained the orders of eviction but relying on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. [(2002) 5 SCC 229] directed that only on the valid revised/renewed building plan being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. The High Court further directed in the impugned order that the valid revised/renewed sanctioned or approved building plan shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenants for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord and till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the premises at the rate at which they were being paid earlier. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed these appeals.

5. Mr. Nidesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that Section 14(4) of the Act provides that if the Controller is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bonafide, he shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and the proviso to Section 14(4) of the Act says that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time not exceeding three months in the aggregate. He submitted that Section 14(4) of the Act thus makes it clear that the order of eviction once passed by the Controller will have to be executed and that the direction of the High Court in the impugned order that the order of eviction will not be executed till such time as the building plan is sanctioned for rebuilding or reconstruction of the tenanted building is contrary to the bare provision in Section 14(4) of the Act. He submitted that in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. (supra), on