2026:HHC:22026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 260 of 2018 a/w COPC No. 293 of 2023 Decided on: 04.06.2026 M/s Deepak Boot House & another ….Appellants Versus Dr. Piyare Lal Sood ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Viplav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dalip Kumar, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) RSA No. 260 of 2018 The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree, as passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., dated 29.03.2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants was dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla dated 22.11.2016 dismissing the petition filed by the appellants/tenants under Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC was affirmed. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present appellants filed an application under Section 144 read with Section 151 CPC and all enabling Sections of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the respondent. As per averments made in the application, it was stated that the landlord/respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act with respect to demised premises i.e. Shop on the ground floor of the building No. 98, Lower Bazar, Shimla. The said petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla vide order dated 06.04.2010 on the ground of building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the demised premises was bonafidly required by the landlord for rebuilding/reconstruction. 3. The appeal preferred by the tenants was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court 12.04.2013. Thereafter, civil revision filed by the tenants was also dismissed on 31.12.2013. The SLP, which was preferred by the tenants/appellants came to be dismissed on 09.02.2015, however, the right of re-entry was reserved in favour of the tenants. 3 4. It was averred in the application that the demised premises are lying locked since its vacation and it was prayed in the application that the application may be allowed and possession of the shop being ground floor of building No. 98, Lower Bazar, Shimla-171001 be directed to be restored in favour of the applicants/appellants from the landlord/respondent on such terms and conditions, as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The said application was duly contested by the landlord/respondent. 6. The learned Rent Controller (2) vide order dated 22.11.2016 dismissed the application, as preferred by the present appellants. 7. Feeling dissatisfied against the order, as passed by the learned Controller, the present appellants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla on 02.01.2017. The learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2018 affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal, as preferred by the appellants. 4 8. Still feeling dissatisfied by the judgment, as passed by the learned First Appellate Court and the order, as passed by the learned Rent Controller, the appellants have instituted the present Regular Second Appeal. 9. With the intervention and able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the dispute stands compromised inter-se the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have placed on record a rent agreement, which has been executed between the parties on 04.06.2026 and same is taken on record. The rent agreement contains the terms and conditions, which have been arrived between the parties and has been duly signed by Sh. Kewal Krishan Sachdeva, tenant and Dr. Piyare Lal Sood, landlord. 11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the parties that in terms of the agreement, both the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement and none of the conditions of the same shall be obviated or deviated in any manner. 5 12. The respondent/landlord by virtue of rent agreement has accepted the prayer of the appellants for their induction as tenants in the premises on the basis of rent agreement, which has been entered between the parties. Therefore, on the basis of agreement, which has been placed and taken on record as Annexure A-1, the present appeal is disposed of having been compromised on the basis of agreement as entered between the parties. 13. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the terms and conditions as made in the rent agreement and the decree be drawn on the basis of rent agreement, as entered inter-se the parties, along with pending applications, if any. COPC No. 293 of 2023 Notice of accusation in the present proceedings was issued on 01.09.2023 and Rule was framed. In view of the compromise arrived ata between the parties, whereby the prayer of the appellants for their induction as tenants in the 6 demised premises has been agreed upon by the landlord/respondent as per the terms and conditions stipulated and incorporated in the rent agreement, the present petition is closed having been compromised and notice is discharged. (Romesh Verma) Judge 4th June, 2026. (kck)