IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.115 of 2007 Date of decision: 15.5.2008. Smt.Melo Devi and others …..Petitioners -Versus- Sh.Rattan Chand ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Naresh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J(oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is a long standing dispute between the parties. Previously the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlords) had filed a petition for eviction which culminated in the order dated October, 29, 1999 passed in Civil Revision No.255 of 1999. Vide this order eviction order was passed against respondent-tenant and it was directed that the tenant would handover the possession of the suit premises to the landlord on or before 30th November, 1999 and the landlord would complete the re-construction on or before 31.12.2000 and thereafter handover one shop measuring 9.9 in width and 8 meters in length to the tenant. The tenant in compliance to the order handed over the possession of the shop to the landlord and building was reconstructed. Here the dispute starts. According to the landlord he was willing to offer the shop to the tenant but the tenant was not willing to pay the rent demanded. The tenant claimed that he was entitled to get the shop on payment of reasonable rent and not exorbitant rent as desired by the landlord. This dispute having arisen the 2 tenant filed a contempt petition in this Court which was numbered as COPC No.6 of 2001. This contempt petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 5.4.2001 holding that the disputed questions of fact had arisen and the Court is not inclined to go into these questions in a contempt petition. However, an order was passed that the tenant may get the possession of the shop in accordance with the agreement arrived between the parties within two weeks. The dispute which arose between the parties was basically with regard to the rate of rent. Admittedly the landlord has now rented out the said shop to some other person. Thereafter, the tenant filed a petition for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act and prayed that the possession of the premises be handed over to him on payment of fair rent. An application for interim relief was also filed and it was prayed that pending disposal of the petition for fixation of fair rent in terms of the agreement earlier entered into between the parties in the previous litigation, landlord be directed to handover the possession of the premises to the tenant. This application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 10th December, 2001. Appeal filed against the same was rejected by the learned Appellate Authority on 13th February, 2007. Hence, the present petition. The main ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is that without fixing the fair rent the authorities below could not have ordered the handing over of the possession to the respondent by way of interim directions. According to Mr.N.K. Thakur, learned courts below should have decided the mater once and for all and after fixing the fair rent the question should have been decided whether the tenant is entitled to recover the possession or not. Without going into the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that an interim order which virtually amounted to allowing the petition should not have been passed. It would have been better if the main petition itself had been decided. The main petition was filed on 17.4.2001. 7 years have 3 elapsed. Therefore, I dispose of this petition by setting aside the orders of both the Courts below but with a direction to the Rent Controller to dispose of the Rent Petition No.3 of 2001 titled as Rattan Chand vs. Melo Devi as early as possible and in any event not later than 30th November, 2008. If need be the Rent Controller shall hear the matter on day to day basis. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted in the case to any of the parties. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 4th June, 2008. May 15, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge