IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 3440, 3439 and 3441 of 2010. Decided on: 29.6.2010. 1.CWP No.3440 of 2010 Babu Lal. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. Respondents. 2.CWP No.3439 of 2010 Shobha Devi. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. Respondents. 3.CWP No.3441 of 2010 Sanjay Kumar Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral): These Writ petitions have been filed with the following prayer(s): 1.CWP No.3440 of 2010 (i) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed not to implement the order of ejectment against the petitioner on the notice Annexure P-1, issued to respondent No.5 till the final disposal of this writ petition. 2 (ii) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed not to dispossess the petitioner without initiating any proceedings against him, in accordance with law. 2.CWP No.3439 of 2010 (i) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed not to implement the order of ejectment against the petitioner on the notice Annexure P-2, issued to respondent No.5 till the final disposal of this writ petition. (ii) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed not to dispossess the petitioner without initiating any proceedings against her, in accordance with law. 3.CWP No.3441 of 2010 (i) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed not to implement the order of ejectment against the petitioner on the notice Annexure P-1, issued to respondent No.5 till the final disposal of this writ petition. (ii) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may be directed not to dispossess the petitioner without initiating any proceedings against him, in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner(s) have vehemently contended that he/she is entitled to notice in the ejectment proceedings. We are afraid that this contention cannot be appreciated since admittedly he/she is not the owner of the premises. He/she is only sub-lessee. Faced with such situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that he/she may be granted at least one year for surrendering the vacant possession of the premises. This has been seriously opposed by learned Addl. Advocate General. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that some time may be given to the petitioner(s) since he/she has been in occupation since quite long time. The petitioner(s) shall surrender the vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.12.2010. In case the petitioner(s) do not surrender vacant possession of the premises, it will be open to the respondents to forcibly evict the petitioner(s) from the premises on the next day. The petitioner(s) will file undertakings in 3 terms of the order, as above within one month from today and in case petitioner(s) do not file such undertaking, the petition(s) shall stand dismissed. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. ( Kuldip Singh), Judge. June 29, 2010 (sks/grs)