HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 200/2010 (M/S) Shyam Lal Bhatia (since deceased) And others. …Petitioners Versus Hari Chand (since deceased) And others. …Respondents Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners. Dated: March 15, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the record, are that in the year 1969 the petitioners’ predecessors issued notices to the predecessor of the respondents to vacate the accommodation in question which was given to them on rental basis. When the premises in question was not vacated, a suit bearing no. 68 of 1969 ‘Seth Shyam Lal Bhatia vs. Hari Chand’ was instituted for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and dispossession from the premises. The respondents also filed Suit No. 41 of 1969 claiming specific performance for execution of the sale deed and had sought protection under Section 29-A of the Act No. 13 of 1972. On 11.08.1980 the Trial Court partially decreed the Suit No. 68 of 1969 for the payment of rent and arrears whereas the Suit No. 41 of 1969 filed by the predecessor of the respondents was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.08.1980, the petitioners filed Appeal no. 132 of 1980, whereas the respondent filed Appeal nos. 143 of 1980 and 144 of 1980. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the appeals filed by the respondents were partly allowed. 2 Against the judgment and order dated 21.02.1987, two Second Appeals bearing Nos. 1358 of 1987 and 1374 of 1987 were filed before the Allahabad High Court and on being transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand, these Second Appeals were renumbered as Second Appeal no. 592 of 2001 and Second Appeal no. 591 of 2001. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.07.2007 passed by this Court these Second Appeals were allowed and order of the Appellate Court was set-aside. The respondents challenged the judgment and order dated 16.07.2007 before Hon’ble the Apex Court by filing SLP No. 7137- 7139 of 2008 and Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.01.2009 dismissed these S.L.Ps., however the respondents were provided time till 31.12.2009 to vacate the premises in question. It was also directed by Hon’ble Apex Court that in case the respondents fail to vacate the premises in question within the time given by the Supreme Court, it will be open to the decree holder to file an execution petition for delivery of possession and in case such a petition has been already filed, an application shall be filed therein to the effect that the respondents have not vacated the premises in question within the time granted by the Supreme Court. It was observed by the Supreme Court that in either eventuality, the Executing Court is not required to issue any notice to the respondents and Executing Court will see that delivery of possession is effected within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the execution petition. It was also directed that in case for delivery of possession any armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the Superintendent of Police within forty eight hours from the date requisition is received thereof. It was also directed that in case anybody else, other than the respondents, is 3 found in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question. Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 30.01.2009 passed in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7137 –7139 of 2008 is reproduced hereunder:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petitions are accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners are, however, granted time till 31st December, 2009, to vacate the premises in question upon each of the petitioners filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. It is directed that in case the petitioners fail to vacate the premises in question within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the decree holder to file an execution petition for delivery of possession and in case such a petition has been already filed, an application shall be filed therein to the effect that the petitioners have not vacated the premises in question within the time granted by this Court. In either eventuality, the Executing Court is not required to issue any notice to the petitioners. The Executing Court will see that delivery of possession is effected within a period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the execution petition or the application aforementioned. In case for delivery of possession any armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the Superintendent of Police within forty eight hours from the date of requisition is received therefore. It is also directed that in case anybody else, other than the petitioners, is found in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question.” 3. In view of the aforesaid clear-cut directions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, Execution Court is not required to linger on the matter and in fact the Execution Court is bound to make compliance of the directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents never filed any undertaking and in fact they have been evicted from the property in question on 16th April, 2009. Now execution proceedings in respect of damages and arrears of rent are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of entire material available on record, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun to decide the Execution Case no. 2 of 2009 (Vikram Raj Bhatia vs. J.N. Arora and others) expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. 6. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 7. The Stay application No. 759/2010 also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 15.03.2010 NCM: