IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.67 of 2010 Date of decision : July 24, 2010 Prem Singh Raju …Petitioner. Versus Bharat Bhushan …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. M.S. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is a Landlord, in whose favour an order of eviction has been passed, on two grounds, namely the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises by his acts and that the premises are bonafide required by the landlord for rebuilding/reconstructing a stair-case. Order has been upheld upto this Court. The order is against the defendant-respondent. 2. Petitioner-landlord filed a petition for execution of order of eviction, before the Rent Controller. Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 15th January, 2010, has observed that the decree-holder (petitioner) has not got the plan approved from the competent authority, for reconstruction of stairs and a direction has been issued to him to produce such a plan, so that the Court may proceed Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… further in the matter. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order, as according to him, Executing Court had no right to go beyond the order of eviction (decree) and also that the order of eviction had been passed not only on the ground of reconstruction but also on the ground that the respondent was guilty of such acts, which had impaired the value and utility of the property and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Executing Court (Rent Controller). 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Executing Court (Rent Controller) has placed reliance upon of judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No.187 of 2006, titled as Sita Ram versus Kalawati to come to the conclusion that production of approved plan is required for executing an order of eviction, passed on the ground of rebuilding/reconstruction of the demised premises. 5. The aforesaid judgment was passed in a Revision Petition, challenging the order of eviction itself and that was not a revision against an order passed in the course of execution proceedings. In the order, dismissing tenant’s Revision Petition against the order of eviction, this Court observed that the execution of the order shall take place, on production of approved plan, regarding reconstruction of building. In the present case, no such direction was given, either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority and …3… this Court also, while finally disposing of the Revision Petition, did not give such a direction. 6. In any case, when the order had been passed on two grounds, the Executing Court was not justified in deferring the process of execution, till the production of sanctioned/ approved plan, for reconstruction. Order of eviction being on one more ground, viz. the tenant had been guilty of acts, which had impaired the value and utility of the premises, warrant of possession ought to have been issued. 7. For the foregoing reasons, petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the Executing Court (Rent Controller) is directed to proceed with the matter, in accordance with the aforesaid observations and, of course, according to law. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 14th September, 2010. July 24, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J