IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 134 of 2024 along with CMP Nos. 26025 & 26028 of 2024.

Reserved on: 28 ^th August, 2025.

Decided on : 11 ^th September, 2025.

Vijay Kumar .... Petitioner.

Versus Khem Chand (deceased) through LRs Arun Kumar & Ors.

....Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

WhetherC approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 6. Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section

24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) assailing the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.(3), Shimla in CMA No. 458 of 2024.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. The facts in brief are that the respondents are landlords in respect of residential premises consisting of three rooms, one kitchen, one bath, latrine and verandah in 4^th of the building No. 139-140, Lower BazaHr, Shimla (for short “the demised premises”).

3. On the application of the landlords, an eviction order stands passed by the learned Rent Controller-IV, Shimla on 28.03.2012 in Rent Pettition No. 57/2 of 2000/98 against the petitioner and proforma respondents herein and their mother Smt. Sarla Devi (now deceased). The appeal filed against the aforesaid eviction order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority (IV), Shimla on 02.08.2014 as rent Appeal Nho. 37-S/14 of 2014/12.

4. The eviction has been ordered on the ground that the landlords required the demised premises bonafide for rebuilding and reconstruction with a rider that the order of eviction would not be available for execution unless the landlords had valid sanctioned plan for rebuilding and reconstruction in their favour from the competent authority. Learned Appellate Authority has afÏrmed the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller without any modification.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein had filed Civil Revision No.203 of 2017 before this Court raising challenge to the aforesaid rider placed in the eviction order, however, the said revision petition was dismissed as wiHthdrawn vide order dated 22.11.2021.

6. Thus, the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller and afÏrmed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality. t

7. Landlords have filed execution petition before the learned Rent Controller to execute the aforesaid eviction order. Petitioner and proforma respondents have preferred objections in the execution petition. One of the objections is thhat the order of eviction was inexecutable for want of valid sanctioned plan for rebuilding and reconstruction. The landlords are contesting the objections by asserting that the valid sanctioned plan was available with them. According to the landlords, the plan had been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on 02.12.1996.

8. Thus, one of the questions before the executing Court was whether the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on 02.12.1996 fulfilled the requirement of eviction order?

9. During the pendency of the execution petition, the petitioner and proforma respondents herein filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to frame an issueH with respect to the disputed question of facts and law more particularly on the question of validity of sanctioned plan dated 02.12.1996.

10. Landlords contested the application.

11. The prayer madte by the petitioner and proforma respondents herein was rejected by the executing Court vide impugned order.

12. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Executing Court after noticing the exposition of law as laid down in Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood and Ors., (2013)5 SCC 243 and in M/s Panna Lal and sons vs. Arun Kumar & Ors, CMPMO No. 471 of 2022, decided b