JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Invoking provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, present petition has been preferred for setting aide order dated 8.9.2022 passed by Rent Controller, Shimla in Execution Petition No. 78 of 2019, titled as Arun Kumar vs. M/s Panna Lal and Others, whereby Rent Controller has dismissed an application under Order 14 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioners, for framing an issue in Execution Petition.

2. Predecessor-in-interest of respondents/landlords had instituted Rent Application No. 56-2 of 2002/98, titled as Khem Chand vs. M/s Panna Lal and sons on 22.4.1998, which was allowed vide order dated 14.9.2010, ordering eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the premises in reference on the ground that the premises was required bona-fide by the landlord for re-building and re-construction and also on the ground that tenant had carried additions and alterations in the premises without written consent of landlord, materially impairing the value and utility of the premises.

3. Appeal bearing No. RC 41-S/13(b) of 2010, preferred by tenant was partly allowed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 30.7.2012, whereby eviction of tenant, on the ground of material additions and alterations in the premises without consent of the landlords thereby impairing its value and utility, was set aside and rest order of eviction was maintained, but subject to condition that Executing Court shall execute the order only on production of duly sanctioned building plan by the petitioner and tenant shall have right of re-entry on equivalent area in the reconstructed building on mutual terms of tenancy.

4. For implementation of aforesaid eviction order, Execution Petition No. 78 of 2019 has been preferred by landlord. On 31.8.2022, tenant had preferred an application under Order 14 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing an issue, ‘whether as on date, Decree Holders are in possession of valid sanctioned plan for carrying out rebuilding?’

5. Aforesaid application was filed on the ground that there was no valid sanction or approved plan available with the landlords for construction/re-building of the building and vide notification dated 11.8.2000 and notification dated 22.8.2022 has declared Lower Bazar, Shimla, including the building in reference as core area and now it is House Umbrella Committee of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, which is competent to approve plans in the core area and the approval and sanction of plan for reconstruction granted to the landlords vide Office Order No. 2001-AP, dated 2.12.1996, has lost its efficacy and to substantiate this condition, tenant has relied upon letters dated 25.2.2016, 19.12.2014, 12.10.2012 and 30.6.2009 issued by Senior Architect Planner/Architect Planner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla in the capacity of Public Information Officer, whereby it has been informed that map was sanctioned in favour of landlords vide order dated 2.12.1996 for reconstruction of premises in reference and as on date, the said plan cannot be considered to be sanctioned, because no correspondence was done by the owner for extension of time for reconstruction, as per record, and area in reference is part of area declared as core area vide notification dated 22.8.2002 and as there is no information regarding starting of re-construction work in the building, no sanction is valid and under the Notifications dated 11.8.2000 and 28.2.2011, plans have not been given extension and present situation of the map approved in the year 1996 was that sanction stood lapsed and no application for renewal or extension of the said map has been submitted.

6. The aforesaid application for framing of issue was opposed by the landlords by filing reply alongwith documents received under Right to Information Act from Senior Architect Planner, wherein it was re-iterated that plan was sanctioned in favour of landlords vide order dated 2.12.1996 for reconstruction of