IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No. 114 of 2010 Decided on: 09.11.2010 M/s Wardhan Corporation and others …Petitioners Versus M/s Bhanu Mull and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the petitioners : Mr. B.C. Negi and Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. _______________________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : With the consent of the parties, the revision petition is disposed of on the following terms: “Though the orders passed by both the authorities are upheld/sustained, however, it is directed that only on the plans being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. The 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 and delivering possession to the landlord. Till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which they are being paid earlier. Subject to these modifications, the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- orders passed by both the authorities below are maintained.” 2. It is made clear that the present lis is disposed of in view of the definitive/authoritative law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harrington House School versus S.M. Ispahani and another, (2002) 5 SCC 229. It is also made clear by way of abundant precaution that the eviction of the tenant was sought primarily on two grounds, namely, arrears of rent and building/re- building. 3. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the present civil revision is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge November 9, 2010 (K. Attri)