The right to re-entry for tenants post-eviction is contingent upon mutual agreement and completion of rebuilding, not an absolute right.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioner-tenant has approached this Court for setting aside order dated 30.6.2014 passed by Rent Controller-1 Shimla in case No. 14-2 of 2014, titled as Ashok Sud and another Vs. Roshan Lal Bhardwaj, whereby application preferred by tenant under Section 14(3)(c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as the “Act”) has been dismissed which was filed seeking direction to the landlord to put him to time schedule with regard to commencement of construction of house within a period of six months from 30.6.2014 and complete the same within a further period of one year after obtaining statutory permission and also issue direction to the landlord to re-induct the tenant after one month of the construction of building in the same place, location and equivalent area to the area which is in occupation of tenant before passing of eviction order by the Rent Controller.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred to their status, i.e. landlord and tenant for convenience.

3. Undisputed facts in present matter are that landlord had preferred Rent Petition No. 47-2 of 2010/2008 on 11.8.2008 for eviction of tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement for the purpose of rebuilding/re-construction after demolition of existing building which was not possible without the premises being vacated and vacant possession thereof being handed over to the landlord by the tenant. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 30.6.2011 evicting the tenant from the premises in reference on the ground of bonafide requirement of re-building and re- construction, and by referring judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Harrignton House School Vs. S.M. Ispahani and another AIR 2002 SC 2268, it was ordered that eviction of the tenant from the premises shall be carried out only on production of duly sanctioned plan by the landlord before the Executing Court.

4. The aforesaid eviction order dated 30.6.2011 was assailed by tenant by filing Appeal No. 40-S/14 of 2011 before the Appellate Authority, wherein on 3.7.2012, following order was passed:-

“1. The applicant shall deposit use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month from 1.7.2011 onwards, within a period of one month from today with learned Rent Controller, Shimla/the respondent.

2. That he shall deposit the use and occupation charges of each month, at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month before the 10^th day of next calendar month, with the learned Rent Controller, Shimla/the respondent.

3. The sum so deposited shall be disbursed to the landlord and shall be subject to the final result of the appeal.”

5. The aforesaid order dated 3.7.2012 was assailed by the landlord by filing Civil Revision No. 100 of 2012 in this High Court, which was decided on 27.12.2012.

6. In the meanwhile landlord had also preferred Execution Petition bearing case No. 17-10 of 2011, wherein objections were preferred by the tenant which were dismissed by the Executing Court (Rent Controller) vide order dated 27.7.2013. This order was assailed by tenant by filing Revision Petition No. 4034 of 2013, which was decided by this High Court on 4.10.2012, wherein referring pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma Vs. Vikas Sood and others, 2013(5) SCC 243 and judgment passed by this High Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006 , dated 8.7.2013, Revision Petition preferred by the tenant was dismissed with clarification that it shall be open to the tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with proviso to clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Rent Act read in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma’s case and judgment of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2006 .

7. In Hari Dass Sharma’s case condition imposed upon the landlord, for executing the eviction order against the tenant, to obtain sanction from the Municipal Corporation and to produce the sanctioned plan for approval of building plan before the Executing Court, was