The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenancy terminated with the passing of the eviction order, and the tenants were liable to pay use and occupation charges to reasonably compensate the landlord for the loss caused by the delay in executing the eviction order.

ORDER :

By way of instant application, filed under S. 151 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4/applicants/ landlords (hereinafter, ‘respondents) to issue directions to the petitioners/non-applicants/ tenants (hereinafter, ‘petitioners’) to pay the use and occupation charges qua the demised premises, which are being occupied by them despite there being eviction order passed by competent court of law.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the original landlord, late Khem Chand filed an eviction petition under S.14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) against the original tenant, late Badri Nath Khanna from the shop situate in building bearing municipal No. 139-140, in the Lower Bazaar, Shimla (hereinafter, ‘demised premises’), on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction. Tenant though opposed the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the landlord on the ground that the building, wherein the demised premises are situate does not require reconstruction but learned Rent Controller, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties, dismissed the eviction petition, against which Rent Appeal No. 255/15 of 2005 was filed by the landlord, which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide judgment dated 7.9.2006. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, landlord filed Revision Petition No. 90 of 2006 before this Court. This court remanded the matter to learned Rent Controller with the direction to record findings on the issue whether Khem Chand could carry on the reconstruction without impleading Smt. Shakuntla as a party or without her permission and without there having been any partition proved to have been effected between the parties. This court further observed that the building in question was composite one and apart from Badri Nath Khanna, there are other tenants in the premises and the roof of the building was common. Though against said order passed by this Court, landlord filed an SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 4.8.2012.

3. Learned Rent Controller, after rehearing the parties, allowed the petition vide order dated 17.1.2009 passed in Rent Case No. 23/2 of 1999/98 by drawing a conclusion that the petition of landlord is bona fide and the tenant is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction. Since the original tenant Badri Nath Khanna died during the proceedings of the case before learned Rent Controller, appeal against order passed by learned Rent Controller came to be filed by his legal heirs, who are petitioners herein.

4. Appellate authority vide judgment dated 11.4.2013 passed in Rent Appeal No. 13-S/13 (b) of 2009, modified the order dated 17.1.2009 to the extent that eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction was to be carried out by the executing court only on production of a duly sanctioned plan by the landlord.

5. Aforesaid judgment passed by the Appellate Authority was though laid challenge by way of Civil Revision in this Court by the landlord, but the same was subsequently withdrawn.

6. The landlord filed an execution petition i.e. Case No. 338-10 of 19/11 before the learned Rent Controller, Court No.2, Shimla for execution of order dated 17.1.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. 4, Shimla in Rent Case No. 23/2 of 1999/98, wherein the tenants filed objections under S.47 CPC, however, learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 20.7.2021, dismissed the objections and ordered for issuance of warrant of possession qua the demised premises. Against the aforesaid order, the tenants approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision No. 29 of 2021, which is pending adjudication before this Court.

7. Vide order dated 29.7.2021, this Court stayed the operation and execution of order dated 20.7.2021 passed by the learned executing Court.