( 2025:HHC:45115 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No.4 of 2024 Date of Decision:- 19.12.2025 Bimla Devi and Others ....Petitioner Versus Rakesh Ahuja (deceased) through LRs ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(d). G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). Challenge in the present Civil Revision filed by the LRs of the tenant as such is sought to the order dated 08.12.2023, passed by the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, while disposing of an application under Section 24(2) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, for staying the operation of impugned judgment dated 28.06.2023, passed by the Rent Controller (1) Shimla. 2. The Appellate Authority as such had allowed the application for stay, till the disposal of the appeal subject to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 payment of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for the premises in question which was to be deposited before 10th of every month. 3. On 09.10.2025, it was observed by the Coordinate Bench that in case upto date arrears of use and occupation charges have not been deposited, then the decree holder is free to proceed with the execution proceedings. 4. The eviction had been ordered by the Rent Controller on account of the fact that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, keeping in view the condition of the building and also the fact that the building was required for the bonafide use by the landlord for re-building and reconstruction. 5. It is now common case of the counsel(s) that in pursuance to the execution proceedings, the petitioners are no longer in possession of the premises in question. Apparently, on account of the fact that he failed to deposit the occupation charges as fixed by the Appellate Court which was a conditional order and the interim protection thus had been granted on a specific condition and the same having been violated, the petitioners have been divested of the possession. 6. In such circumstances, nothing else survives in the present petition for adjudication, keeping in view the fact that the 3 order was arising out of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, in view of the law laid down in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, where it has been held that after the eviction order has been passed the tenant will have to pay mesne profits to stay in the premises. 7. Resultantly, the present petition stands disposed off accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 19th December, 2025 (Munish Thakur)