IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 22 of 2009. Decided on: 16th August, 2010. M/S Kishori Lal Jagat Ram and others. …Petitioners. -Versus- Lokesh Sood and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioners. : Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioners/tenants have lost in both the Courts below, i.e., Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority. However, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners/tenants, the Appellate Authority has made the following observations in paragraph No. 28 of the judgment on 30th September, 2008, which reads thus: “It is clarified that in view of the directions issued by our Hon’ble High Court in Civil Revision No. 187 /06, titled as Sita Ram Vs. Smt. Kalawati and another, decided on 27.12.2006, the eviction order shall not be available for execution on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction unless the respondents/landlords produces before the Executing Court the building plan duly sanctioned/approved by the competent authority whereupon and whereafter only the Executing Court shall allow the execution of the ejectment order.” 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2. In view of the observations made in paragraph No. 28 of the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority on 30th September, 2008, Mr. Ashok Sood, learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants does not press this petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall only be ejected/evicted as per paragraph No. 28 of the judgment dated 30th September, 2009. In other words, the observations made in the aforesaid paragraph shall be complied with in letter and spirit. 3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed being not pressed in view of the observations made hereinabove, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge 16th August, 2010. (bhupender)