ORDER : Piar Singh Rana, J. 1. Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 24 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against order dated 19.2.2015 passed by learned Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court whereby learned Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court dismissed the objections filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC by revisionist. Brief facts of the case 2. Shri Anil Kumar landlord filed petition under Section 15 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 for eviction of tenant. It is pleaded that Anil Kumar Sood is owner/landlord of middle flat Below shop 120/2 lower market Shimla and Subhash Sharma was inducted as tenant in aforesaid premises by predecessor-in-interest of Anil Kumar at the rent of Rs. 720/- (Rupees seven hundred twenty only) per annum. It is pleaded that premises consists of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dinning, one kitchen and one toilet. It is pleaded that Anil Kumar filed eviction petition in the capacity of specified owner who was posted in Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Nigam Vihar Shimla and government accommodation was provided to him. It is pleaded that after retirement Anil Kumar require accommodation for his personal use and occupation. 3. Petition was contested by tenant namely Subhash Sharma. Learned Rent Controller framed following issues:-- "1. Whether premises in question is bonafide required by the landlord for his own residence, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between parties as alleged? OPR 3. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR 4. Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR 5. Whether petition is pre mature as alleged? ......OPR 6. Whether petitioner is not specified landlord as alleged? ......OPR 7. Whether petition is malafide as landlord has got ample accommodation at Prince of Wales Building Shimla as alleged? ......OPR 8. Relief." 4. Learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in affirmative and decided issues Nos. 2 to 8 in negative. Learned Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenant on ground of bonafide requirement by landlord for his own use. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Rent Controller dated 15.3.2012 tenant Subhash filed Civil Revision No. 4 of 2013 titled Subhash v. Anil Kumar before Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and on 19.8.2014 Hon'ble High Court dismissed the civil revision filed by tenant. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Rent Controller dated 15.3.2012 tenant Subhash filed Civil Revision No. 4 of 2013 titled Subhash v. Anil Kumar before Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and on 19.8.2014 Hon'ble High Court dismissed the civil revision filed by tenant. Thereafter SLP was filed by tenant before Apex Court of India and same was also dismissed by Apex Court of India. Thereafter execution petition was filed by landlord against tenant before learned Rent Controller exercising the powers of Executing Court with prayer that notice be issued to tenant and warrant of possession of premises be issued in favour of landlord. Further prayer sought that tenant be placed in civil imprisonment. 6. During the pendency of execution petition tenant filed objections under Section 47 CPC read with 151 CPC pleaded therein that certain subsequent new developments took place and execution petition is not executable. It is pleaded that Smt. Pushpa Devi, Smt. Poonam have sold their 1/3rd share on 16.12.2013 in favour of Joginder Singh son of late Shri Darbara Singh resident of 120 lower market Shimla vide sale deed registered in office of Sub Registrar (Urban) Shimla. It is pleaded that another co-owner Smt. Reeta also sold her share on 27.12.2013 in favour of Joginder Singh vide sale deed dated 27.12.2013. It is pleaded that landlord Anil Kumar has also sold his share in favour of Joginder Singh but said transaction has not been depicted in red and white with an ulterior motive to continue execution petition. It is pleaded that in view of subsequent developments execution petition has become in-executable. It is pleaded that objection petition be allowed after affording opportunity to objector to lead evidence to prove the said contention and further pleaded that execution petition be dismissed with costs. 7. Anil Kumar landlord filed response pleaded therein that objection petition is not maintainable and further pleaded that objections filed just to delay the execution proceedings. It is denied that new developments took place. It is pleaded that purchasers have stepped into the shoes of co-owner and have not stepped into the shoes of tenant. It is pleaded that landlord is entitled to file execution petition and to recover the possession of premises. It is denied that landlord Anil Kumar has sold his 1/3rd share in favour of Joginder Singh. It is pleaded that purchasers have stepped into the shoes of co-owner and have not stepped into the shoes of tenant. It is pleaded that landlord is entitled to file execution petition and to recover the possession of premises. It is denied that landlord Anil Kumar has sold his 1/3rd share in favour of Joginder Singh. It is pleaded that landlord has not sold his share and prayer for dismissal of objection petition sought. 8. Tenant filed rejoinder and re-asserted the allegations mentioned in objection petition. 9. Learned Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court dismissed objections of tenant on 19.2.2015 and directed tenant to hand over vacant possession of premises to landlord on or before 21.3.2015. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and Court also perused entire record carefully. 10. Following points arise for determination in civil revision petition:-- "1. Whether civil revision is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition? 2. Relief." Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that revisionist filed objection petition before executing Court and executing Court without framing any issue on objection petition and without giving opportunity to objector to prove disputed facts alleged in objection petition dismissed the objection petition of objector and on this ground revision petition be allowed is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 12. As per Section 26 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 there is specific provision of execution of orders. Section 26 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 is quoted in toto:-- "26. Execution of orders-Save as otherwise provided in Section 31 any order made by the Controller or an order passed on appeal under this Act shall be executable by the Controller as a decree of a civil Court and for this purpose the Controller shall have all the powers of a civil court." 13. It is settled law that any order made by Rent Controller or an order passed on appeal under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act shall be executable by Controller as decree of civil Court and for this purpose the Controller shall have power of civil Court. It is settled law that any order made by Rent Controller or an order passed on appeal under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act shall be executable by Controller as decree of civil Court and for this purpose the Controller shall have power of civil Court. It is well settled law that in execution proceedings under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 would apply for execution of order passed under HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987. 14. As per Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 all questions arising between the parties or their representatives relating to execution discharge or satisfaction would be determined by executing Court and not by separate suit. 15. In objection petition tenant has specifically mentioned that 1/3rd share of property has been sold by landlord Anil Kumar in favour of Joginder Singh but said transaction has not been depicted in red and white with ulterior motive to continue the execution petition. In response landlord Anil Kumar has specifically mentioned that he did not sell his share of property in favour of Joginder Singh son of Darbara Singh as mentioned in objection petition. Tenant has also specifically pleaded in objection petition that Pushpa Devi, Punam and Rita have sold their share in premises in favour of Joginder Singh son of late Darbara Singh. 16. As per Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when material proposition of facts are affirmed by one party and denied by other party then Courts are under legal obligation to frame issues. It is well settled law that issues are of two kinds. (1) Issues of facts. (2) Issues of laws. In present case tenant has pleaded material proposition of facts in objection petition and same proposition of facts is denied by landlord namely Anil Kumar. Court is of opinion that framing of issues upon objection petition filed by tenant is essential in ends of justice in order to dispose of objection petition properly and in order to impart justice to parties. See, AIR 1994 H.P High Court 27 titled Om Prakash Rawal v. Mr. Justice Amrit Lal Bahri. It was held in case reported in, AIR 1983 Allahabad 450 (DB) titled Kaniz Fatima (deceased) and another v. Shah Naim Ashraf that if no issue frame then findings could not be given qua material disputed facts. See, AIR 1994 H.P High Court 27 titled Om Prakash Rawal v. Mr. Justice Amrit Lal Bahri. It was held in case reported in, AIR 1983 Allahabad 450 (DB) titled Kaniz Fatima (deceased) and another v. Shah Naim Ashraf that if no issue frame then findings could not be given qua material disputed facts. It was held in case., SLJ 1988 HP 882 titled Leela Devi and another v. Ram Lal Rahu and another that if issue not framed upon material disputed facts then same would amount to material illegality and irregularity. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist landlord that there is no necessity to frame issues by learned executing Court in objection petition is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that material proposition of facts have been asserted by one party and denied by other party in objection petition. It is held that framing of issues and giving opportunity to objector to lead evidence and also giving opportunity to non-objector to adduce rebuttal evidence is essential in present case in the ends of justice. 18. In view of above stated facts following issues are framed upon objection petition filed by tenant. "(A) Whether landlord Anil Kumar has sold his 1/3rd share in favour of Joginder Singh son of Shri Darbara Singh as alleged in objection petition if so its effect? ....Onus placed on objector (B) Whether Pushpa Devi, Poonam Devi and Reeta co-owners have also sold their shares in favour of Joginder Singh as alleged in objection petition if so its effect? ....Onus placed on objector (C) Whether objector has no cause of action to file objection petition as alleged? ....Onus placed on Non-objector (D) Relief." Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2 (Relief) 19. ....Onus placed on objector (C) Whether objector has no cause of action to file objection petition as alleged? ....Onus placed on Non-objector (D) Relief." Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2 (Relief) 19. In view of findings upon point No. 1 civil revision is partly allowed and order of learned Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court dated 19.2.2015 announced in objection petition No. 8/11 of 2015 is set aside and case is remanded back to learned trial Court for limited purpose only with direction to dispose of objection petition filed by objector within two months from the receipt of file after giving due opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case in accordance with law on issues mentioned in para No. 18 A, B, C & D framed supra and thereafter decide execution petition expeditiously for the reasons that execution petition is pending since March 2013 and required expeditious disposal. Observations will not affect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of revision petition. Parties are directed to appear before learned Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court on 31.3.2016. Registrar(Judicial) will ensure that file of learned Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court along with certified copy of this order should reach the court of concerned learned Rent Controller-cum-Executing Court on or before 31.3.2016. No order as to costs. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.