The executing court must adhere to the judgment and decree sought to be executed and cannot make observations contrary to the same.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral). - By way of instant Civil Revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner-judgment debtor (hereinafter, 'JD") has laid challenge to order dated 06.11.2020, passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. whereby, objections filed by Judgment Debtor under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC, have been dismissed (Annexure P-8).

2. Precisely, the challenge to aforesaid order passed by executing Court below is on two grounds:-

(i) Since respondent-DH has no valid sanctioned plan in his favour, petitioner-JD, cannot be ordered to be evicted.

(ii) Executing Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction by making observation in the impugned order that contention of JD that she has been held entitled for reentry is of no consequence as right of reentry is available to the JD only after rebuilding and reconstruction of the building.

3. Besides above, learned Senior Counsel representing the J.D., argued that Executing Court in execution proceedings could not have recorded finding that execution petition is maintainable solely on the ground that building in which the premises is housed, has been found unsafe and unfit for human habitation, especially, when eviction was also sought on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction. Having taken note of the controversy inter se parties, this Court with a view to cut-short the controversy, passed following order on 5th January, 2021, which reads as under:

"Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner-JD, on instructions, states that petitioner-JD would be content and satisfied in case this court before upholding the order impugned in the instant proceedings verifies factum with regard to correctness and genuineness of the claim of the respondent/DH that sanction has been granted in his favour for rebuilding/reconstruction of premises i.e. Building No. 31, Galli No. 7, Middle Bazaar, Shimla.

Mr. Sumit Sood, learned counsel for the respondent/DH contends that bare perusal of order dated 6.11.2020 whereby objections under Section 47 CPC having been filed by the petitioner/JD have been dismissed itself suggests that building plan stands sanctioned vide order dated 10.9.2012 and same still holds good, especially in view of the deletion of Section 251 of Municipal Corporation Act and as such, there is no requirement, if any, to ascertain aforesaid factum from the Municipal Corporation Shimla.

Be that as it may, this court, with a view to cut short the controversy at hand, directs Mr. Naresh Gupta, learned standing counsel for Municipal Corporation, Shimla to verify from the records as to whether respondent/DH has been given sanction to rebuild/reconstruct the premises in question vide sanction order dated 10.9.2012 or not. If yes, then whether it is subsisting or stands withdrawn.

Mr.Gupta, while doing aforesaid in terms of instant order may also keep in mind that on account of deletion of Section 251 of Municipal Corporation Act now there is no necessity, if any, to get the sanctioned plan renewed/revalidated. Let report in terms of aforesaid order be filed by Mr. Gupta, on 7.1.2021. enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders in the instant case."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, Mr. Naresh Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, Shimla, on instructions, informed this Court that sanction order dated 10.9.2012, issued in favour of respondent-DH qua the premises in question, i.e., Building No. 31, Galli No.7, Middle Bazar, Shimla is valid and subsisting as of now. Since, sanction order dated 10/11 September, 2012, is valid and subsisting, first ground raised on behalf of petitioner -JD deserves outright rejection.

5. Careful perusal of order dated 18.3.2011, passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Case No. 30/2 of 2007, clearly reveals that respondent-DH, sought eviction of petitioner-JD from residential premises as detailed hereinabove