IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 28 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.7.2010 Shri Prem Singh Raju ….. Petitioner Versus Smt. Anuja Sood and anr. …. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Pawan Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. For the Respondents : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Counsel for respondent No.1. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 3 framed by the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating action against respondent No.1 for wilful and intentional disobedience of the judgment, dated 29.6.2009, passed in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2007. 2. The other relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed an ejectment petition against respondent No.2 on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide requirement, re-construction and material impairment of the premises. This court upheld the ejectment order on the grounds of reconstruction and material impairment. It has been Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes …2… stated that after the decision in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2006, the petitioner had filed an execution petition before Rent Controller-III, Shimla. On 15.1.2010 Rent Controller in the execution petition directed the petitioner to produce sanction/approved plan from the competent authority along with certified copy of the judgment passed by the High Court in Revision Petition No. 11 of 2006 as well as the copy of stay order passed by the Appellate Court and copy of order, if any, passed by the High Court in the revision petition pending. 3. It has been submitted that in the judgment dated, 29.6.2009, this court has specifically considered the objection of the tenant regarding sanction/approved plan and it was held that sanction of the plan is not sine qua non for seeking ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of construction and reconstruction under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Rent Controller, in violation of the observations of this Court in judgment dated 29.6.2009, has directed the petitioner to produce sanction/approved plan from the competent authority. It has also been submitted that there was other ground of eviction of the tenant and for that purpose, sanction/approved plan was not required from any authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in these circumstances, the Rent Controller has committed contempt of this Court as she has refused to execute the ejectment order despite the judgment, dated 26.9.2009. 5. I have gone through the order, dated 15.1.2010, passed by Rent Controller. In the order, dated 15.1.2010, the Rent Controller …3… has noticed another judgment of this court in Civil Revision No. 187 of 2006, titled as Sita Ram Versus Kalwati and observed that eviction on the grounds of rebuilding and reconstruction cannot be ordered, unless the decree holder produces a sanction/approved plan by the competent authority before the executing court. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Civil Revision No. 187 of 2006, the observation of this court is with respect to that particular case. Be that as it may, the question in the present case is as to whether the Rent Controller by relying upon the judgment in Civil Revision No. 187/2006 has committed contempt of this Court in presence of judgment dated 29.6.2009. The Rent Controller may not be right in relying upon the judgment in Civil Revision No. 187 of 2006 if the observations of this Court in that case were with respect to that particular case only as contended by learned counsel for petitioner. The contempt of court has been defined in Section 2 (a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, civil contempt has been defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act. The disobedience must be wilful. It does not emerge from the order dated 15.1.2010 that the said order amounts to wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 29.6.2009 of this Court. According to petitioner the order dated 15.1.2010 is wrong, even if order dated 15.1.2010 is assumed to be wrong as contended on behalf of the petitioner still it cannot be construed that the order dated 15.1.2010 was passed by respondent No.1 in wilful disobedience of order dated 29.6.2009. The order dated 15.1.2010 has been passed in the …4… execution petition and if the petitioner is aggrieved by this order, he has remedy to challenge the order. 7. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Controller has committed contempt of this court when she has refused to execute the ejectment order on the ground of material impairment of the premises is noticed to be rejected for the reason that the Rent Controller has nowhere observed that ejectment order on the ground of material impairment cannot be executed. On 15.1.2010, the case was ordered to be listed on 3.3.2010 and petitioner was directed to produce some documents. 8. Thus, seen from any angle, no case for contempt of court is made out against respondent No.1. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2010, he is at liberty to challenge the said order in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed and notice discharged. July 30, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (pankaj) Judge.