RSA 206 of 2007 7.9.2009 Present: Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for respondent No.1. It is undisputed before me that the appeal arises out of the execution proceedings instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the suit premises. Learned counsel for both sides have admitted that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in RSA No. 506 of 2004, titled Sunit Kumar Vs. Laxmi Chand, decided on 7th August, 2009 holding therein that decree for possession passed by a Civil Court will be valid but unexecutable where the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 are applicable. Parties agree that as of today, the provisions of the Act ibid are applicable to Kandaghat where the suit premises are situated. This appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of judgment passed in RSA No. 506 of 2004 and shall abide by the directions given therein. No order as to costs. September 7, 2009(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), J.