IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 73 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 6 , 2009 Smt. Shankri Devi Petitioner Versus Smt. Rameshwaru Devi and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents :Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel has filed the present petition assailing the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur in Petition No. 1/2 of 2003, titled as Rameshwaru Devi and others versus Smt. Shankari Devi, dated 1.12.2006, duly affirmed by the Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2007, titled Shankari Devi versus Rameshwaru Devi and others, dated 27.3.2009. Learned counsel has assailed the petition on the ground that observations made by the Apex Court in Harrington House School versus S. M. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Ispahani and another, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2268 have not been incorporated in the impugned orders. The eviction petition filed by the landlord stands allowed. The Rent Controller has passed an order of ejectment in the following terms: “24. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues and more particularly findings on issues No. 1 & 2 above, the petition of the petitioners is ordered to be allowed on the ground of arrears of rent as well as bonafide requirement of building and the respondent is ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on these both grounds. It is made clear that if the respondent deposited the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,476-50 within 30 days from the date of this order, then the respondent will not be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent. Keeping in view the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.” Admittedly the tenant has deposited the entire arrears of rent. However on the ground of bonafide requirement of the building for reconstruction, the First Appellate Authority has passed the order as under: “17. In view of my aforesaid findings and observations, with this Court being constrained to accord the relief as prayed for, this appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order 3 as to costs, with the result the impugned Judgment/order of the learned trial Court, is, affirmed and maintained. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The record of the learned trial Court alongwith copies of judgment and decree sheet be sent back forthwith and the file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.” The Apex Court in Harrington House School (supra), in the operative portion has made the following observations: Para 8. “… The phenomenal delay in disposal of litigation entails heavy financial burden on the landlord and that is why they have not submitted the plans for approval though ready. There appears to be some substance in the plea inasmuch as we find that this litigation itself has taken about 14 years by this time in achieving a finality. A procedure can be devised to protect the interests of both – the tenant and the landlord, specially be taking care of the apprehension expressed by the tenant that the property may remain lying unconstructed in spite of being vacated by the tenant and followed by demolition if the plans for proposed reconstruction are not sanctioned by the local authority. The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the landlords shall submitted the plans of reconstruction for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be produced before the Executing Court whereupon the Executing Court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property 4 and delivering possession to the landlord- decreeholders. Till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the suit premises at the same rate at which they are being paid. Along with the plans the landlords shall also file an undertaking before the Executing Court as required by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. Subject to the said modification the decree as passed by the High Court is maintained. The appeal stands disposed of. No order as to the costs.” This view has been reiterated by this Court in CR No. 187 of 2006, titled as Sh. Sita Ram versus Smt. Kalawati & another, decided on 27.12.2006. Keeping in view the observations made by the Apex Court the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are modified to the extent that the landlord shall submit the plans for reconstruction for the approval of the local authority and on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. It shall be open for the landlord to immediately apply to the authorities in accordance with law. The eviction order shall not be available for execution unless the respondents produce before the Executing Court the building plan duly sanctioned/approved by a competent authority whereupon and whereafter only the Executing Court shall allow the execution of the Eviction Order after affording to the petitioner-tenant three 5 months’ time to vacate the property and deliver vacant possession thereof to the respondents-landlords. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner-tenant continues paying to the respondents- landlords use and occupation charges. The aforesaid is subject to the petitioner not creating a third party interest. Present petition is disposed of so also the pending application. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 6, 2009 (PK)