JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J. Present Revision Petition is filed under Section 24 (5) of H.P. Urban Rent control Act 1987 against the order dated 30.3.2015 passed by learned Rent Controller Shimla H.P. Brief facts of the case: 2. Landlords filed eviction petition No. No.13/2 of 2001/2000 under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against tenant for eviction from the demised premises. Petition filed by the landlords allowed vide order dated 29.11.2007. Tenant preferred appeal before learned Appellate Authority which was dismissed. Tenant preferred Civil Revision No.64 of 2011 before Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and Hon'ble High Court disposed of civil revision No. 64 of 2011 finally with direction that tenant would retain possession of the demised premises till the map of building for reconstruction is not sanctioned by competent authority in accordance with law. Hon'ble High Court of H.P. further directed in civil revision No. 64 of 2011 that tenant would pay arrears of use and occupation charge due upto 31.3.2012 to landlords within 30 days w.e.f. 26.4.2012 thereafter would pay use and occupation charges on quarterly basis regularly by 15th day of next month after the quarter for which such charges would be payable. Thereafter landlords contended before learned Rent controller that rider for production of building plan has been removed by latest judgment announced in CR No. 125 of 2012 decided on 16.8.2013 and prayed for issuance of warrant of possession. Thereafter learned Rent Controller on dated 2.9.2013 issued warrant of possession against tenant. Thereafter tenant filed objections before learned Rent controller. Learned Rent controller vide order dated 10.1.2014 held that in view of rulings given in CR No. 125 of 2012 decided on 16.8.2013 by H.P. High Court in case title Karam Chand and others vs. Jasbir Kaur and others and in view of ruling reported in 2013 (5) SCC 243 title Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood and others landlord is not require to produce sanctioned building plan before executing court and dismissed objections filed by tenant and directed tenant to vacate premises forthwith keeping in view that eviction order against tenant passed on dated 29.11.2007. Thereafter tenant filed Civil Revision No. 9 of 2014 title Raniya Ram alias R.R. Sharma vs. Gopala and others against order of learned Rent controller which was disposed of by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. on 3.6.2014. Thereafter tenant filed Civil Revision No. 9 of 2014 title Raniya Ram alias R.R. Sharma vs. Gopala and others against order of learned Rent controller which was disposed of by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. on 3.6.2014. Hon'ble High Court set aside order of learned Rent Controller with directions that tenant shall continue to retain possession of demised premises till map of building for reconstruction is not sanctioned by competent authority. Hon'ble High Court of H.P. further directed that use and occupation charges will be determined by learned Rent Controller. As per directions of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. learned Rent Controller determined use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month of demised premises vide order dated 30.3.2015. 3. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Rent Controller dated 30.3.2015 tenant filed present revision petition. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- Point No.1 Whether civil revision filed by tenant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of revision petition? Point No. 2 Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons: 6. AW-1 Vikas Sood has stated that R.R. Sharma is his tenant. He has stated that premises is situated in Lakkar market. He has stated that premises is residential in nature and he has stated that one room set is in possession of the tenant. He has stated that there are seven tenants in the building. He has stated that he has filed eviction petition against all the tenants. He has stated that tenant has challenged the eviction order before Hon'ble High Court of H.P. and he has stated that on 3.6.2014 in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2014 compromise order was passed and he has further stated that copy of order is Ext. AW-1/A. He has stated that Hon'ble High Court has fixed use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month. He has stated that certified copy of Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No. 111 of 2010 title Smt. Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand Sood & others is Ext. AW-1/B. He has also placed on record certified copy Ext. AW-1/C and Ext. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month. He has stated that certified copy of Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No. 111 of 2010 title Smt. Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand Sood & others is Ext. AW-1/B. He has also placed on record certified copy Ext. AW-1/C and Ext. AW-1/D. He has stated that use and occupation charges as of today is Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) per month. He has stated that rent in the locality is 15000/- (Fifteen thousand) per month. He has also tendered into evidence certified copy of AW-1/E. He has stated that other co-tenants are paying use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month. He has admitted that site plan of construction not approved till date. He has stated that he has submitted construction site plan before the competent authority. He has denied suggestion that construction is not permitted in the area where demised premises is situated. He has denied suggestion that he is not legally entitled for use and occupation charges. He has admitted suggestion that he has received Rs. 300/- (Three hundreds) per month as use and occupation charges from co-tenant Madan Lal w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2012. 7. RW-1 R.R. Sharma has stated that he is a tenant residing in building No. 12/13 Lakkar Market in 2nd Floor. He has stated that he is in possession of one room set comprising of one kitchen, one toilet and one bathroom. He has stated that eviction order was passed against him in the year 2007 vide Ext. RW-1/A. He has stated that he filed appeal and in appeal eviction order was upheld. He has stated that thereafter he filed Revision Petition No. 64 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court and same was decided on 26.4.2012. He has stated that copy of order is Ext. RW-1/B. He has stated that area in which the demised premises is situated is non-construction Zone. He has stated that use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 1800/- (Eighteen Hundred) per month has been decided vide Ext. RW-1/C. He has stated that all other co-tenants are depositing amount at the rate of contractual rent. He has stated that he is also depositing the amount of contractual rent. He has stated that Madan Lal co-tenant is residing in 3rd Floor of the building. He has also stated that landlord is receiving Rs. RW-1/C. He has stated that all other co-tenants are depositing amount at the rate of contractual rent. He has stated that he is also depositing the amount of contractual rent. He has stated that Madan Lal co-tenant is residing in 3rd Floor of the building. He has also stated that landlord is receiving Rs. 300/- (Three hundred) from cotenant Madan Lal as use and occupation charges residing in same building. 8. Following documentaries evidence filed by parties: (1) Ext. AW1/A order passed by Hon'ble High Court in CR No.9 of 2014 decided on 3.6.2014 (2) Ext. AW1/B order passed by H.P. High Court in CR No. 111 of 2010 title Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand and others (3) AC1/C order passed by High Court in CR No. 112 of 2010 title Jasbir Kaur and others vs. Karam Chand (4) AW1/D order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court of India on 16.4.2013 in SLP No. 13527 of 2012 in case title Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand and others (5) Ext. AW1/E order passed by H.P. High Court in CR No. 64 of 2011 title R.R. Sharma vs. Karam Chand (6) Ext. RW1/A order passed by learned Rent Controller in case No. 13/2 of 2001/2000 title Karam Chand and others vs. R.R. Sharma (7) Ext. RW1/B consolidated order passed by H.P. High Court on 26.4.2012 in CR No. 180 of 2007 along with CR No. 181 of 2007, 3 & 19 of 2008, 111 & 112 of 2010 and 64 of 2011 (8) Ect. RW1/C order passed by Additional District Judge Shimla in Rent Appeal No. RBT 2-S/14 of 2011/12 title Arun Kumar vs. Brahmin Sahha (9) Ext. RW1/D certify copy of application filed in revision 181 of 2007 title Ajit Singh deceased through LR's Smt. Prakash Kaur and others vs. Karam Chand (10) Ext. RW1/E order dated 5.8.2013 passed in CR No. 181 of 2007 (11) Ext. RW1/F information received under Right to Information Act regarding rent paid by tenants in Lakkar Market. 9. RW1/D certify copy of application filed in revision 181 of 2007 title Ajit Singh deceased through LR's Smt. Prakash Kaur and others vs. Karam Chand (10) Ext. RW1/E order dated 5.8.2013 passed in CR No. 181 of 2007 (11) Ext. RW1/F information received under Right to Information Act regarding rent paid by tenants in Lakkar Market. 9. In the present case it is proved on record that (i) Civil Revision No. 180 of 2007 title Surinder Sethi vs. Karam Chand Sood & others (ii) Civil Revision No. 181 of 2007 title Ajeet Singh (deceased) through LRs Smt. Parkash Kaur and others vs. Karam Chand & others (iii) Civil Revision No. 3 of 2008 title Madan Lal vs. Karam Chand & others (iv) Civil Revision No. 19 of 2008 title Karam Chand & others vs. Madan Lal (v) Civil Revision No. 111 of 2010 title Smt. Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand & others (vi) Civil Revision No. 112 of 2010 title Jasbir Kaur & others vs. Karam Chand & others (vii) Civil Revision No. 64 of 2011 title R.R. Sharma vs. Karam Chand & others were filed relating to same building. It is also proved on record that interim orders of use and occupation charges were passed in the above stated Civil Revision petitions and use and occupation charges vide interim orders fixed at Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month. It is also proved on record that interim orders of use and occupation charges to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13527 of 2012 wherein interim order of Hon'ble High Court dated 13.9.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 111 of 2010 CMP No. 49 of 2011 was assailed and on 16.4.2013 Hon'ble Apex Court ordered that order dated 13.9.2011 passed by the High Court of H.P. relating to use and occupation charges would revive subject to any further direction issued by the High Court in the final order dated 26.4.2012. 10. Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13527 of 2012 specifically held in positive manner that final order announced on 26.4.2012 would finally prevail over the interim orders. Order of Hon'ble Apex Court is quoted in toto:- ?Order announced in SLP No. 13527 of 2012 title Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand Sood & others. 10. Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13527 of 2012 specifically held in positive manner that final order announced on 26.4.2012 would finally prevail over the interim orders. Order of Hon'ble Apex Court is quoted in toto:- ?Order announced in SLP No. 13527 of 2012 title Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand Sood & others. ORDER This Special Leave Petition assails an Order dated 13th September 2011passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CMP No. 49 of 2011 filed in C.R. No. 111 of 2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit use and occupation charges for the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month pending final disposal of the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. When this petition came up for preliminary hearing before us on 7th May 2012 we issued notice to the respondent and stayed the operation of the interim direction mentioned above subject to the petitioner depositing compensation for use and occupation of the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) with effect from the date of the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The High Court was by the same order requested to expedite the hearing of the revision petition. We are today informed by Mr. Suryanarayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents that the High Court had already disposed of Civil Revision No. 111 of 2010 filed by the petitioner in terms of an Order dated 26th April 2012. This petition was therefore, infructuous even on the date this Court issued notice and granted an interim stay. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who submits that the revision petition having been disposed of by the High Court finally nothing really survives for consideration in this matter. In the circumstances, therefore, while dismissing this petition as infructuous we vacate the direction issued by us on 7th May 2012. We make it clear that the Order dated 13th September 2011 passed by the High Court regarding deposit of compensation for use and occupation shall stand revived subject to any further direction issued by the High Court in the final Order dated 26th April 2012 passed by its. No costs.? 11. We make it clear that the Order dated 13th September 2011 passed by the High Court regarding deposit of compensation for use and occupation shall stand revived subject to any further direction issued by the High Court in the final Order dated 26th April 2012 passed by its. No costs.? 11. Hon'ble Apex Court of India on 16.4.2013 revived interim order of H.P. High Curt dated 13.9.2011 relating to deposit of use and occupation charges to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month subject to further directions issued by High Court of H.P. in final order dated 26.4.2012. 12. Interim order of Hon'ble High Court of H.P. dated 13.9.2011 passed in CR No. 111 of 2010 title Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand and others is quoted in toto:- ?13.9.2011:Present: Mr.G.D.Verma Senior Advocate with Mr.B.C.Verma Advocate. Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma Advocate for the respondents. Heard and gone through the record. Order dated 4.10.2010 was passed in the presence of the parties and the reason given in the order is that in the case of another tenant under the same landlord, use and occupation charges had been fixed @ Rs 10,000/- per month, though agreed rate of rent was Rs. 34/- per month. In the present case agree rate of rent was Rs. 100/- per month and so the use and occupation charges could not have been lesser than the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month fixed in the other case. Hence the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Judge High Court. September 13, 2011.? 13. It is proved on record that on 26.4.2012 Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in consolidated manner disposed of all civil revisions mentioned below by way of single order finally. (i) Civil Revision No. 180 of 2007 title Surinder Sethi vs. Karam Chand Sood & others (ii) Civil Revision No. 181 of 2007 title Ajeet Singh (deceased) through LRs vs. Karam Chand & others (iii) Civil Revision No. 3 of 2008 title Madan Lal vs. Karam Chand & others (iv) Civil Revision No. 19 of 2008 title Karam Chand & others vs. Madan Lal (v) Civil Revision No. 111 of 2010 title Smt. Vidyawati vs. Karam Chand & others (vi) Civil Revision No. 112 of 2010 title Jasbir Kaur & others vs. Karam Chand & others (vii) Civil Revision No. 64 of 2011 title R.R. Sharma vs. Karam Chand & others. It is well settled law that whenever several revisions petitions are disposed of in consolidated manner then final order passed would be operative on all the consolidated revision petitions. It is held that final consolidated order will also be operative in Civil Revision No. 64 of 2011 filed by R.R. Sharma present revisionist relating to use and occupation charges. Operative part of order dated 26.4.2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in consolidated order dated 26.4.2012 mentioned in para No.9 page 6 relating to use and occupation charges is quoted in toto:- 14. ?Admittedly the tenant in CR No. 3 of 2008 Shri Madan Lal has paid up-to date use and occupation charges in respect of the demised premises being occupied by him to the land. In all other cases the tenants shall pay the arrears of use and occupation charges due upto 31.3.2012 to the landlords within 30 days from today thereafter they shall keep on paying/depositing future use and occupation charges on quarterly basis regularly by 15th day of the month next after the quarter for which such charges would be payable. The tenant in CR No. 3 of 2008 shall also keep on paying future use and occupation charges on quarterly basis in the same manner.? 15. Hon'ble High Court of H.P. on dated 26.4.2012 while disposing of all seven revision petitions in consolidated manner did not alter amount of use and occupation charges fixed at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) per month. Hon'ble High Court of H.P. on dated 26.4.2012 only modified modes of payment of use and occupation charges by tenants. 16. As per Article 141 of Constitution of India law declared by Apex Court of India would be binding on all courts. It is held that legally landlords cannot demand different use and occupation charges from different tenants residing in the same building as per Article 14 constitution of India which gives to all citizens of India fundamental rights of equality before law. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 (Final Order): 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil revision petition is dismissed in view of fact that Hon'ble Apex Court of India in SLP No. 13527 of 2012 decided on 16.4.2013 revived order dated 13.9.2011 passed by H.P. High Court in civil revision No. 111 of 2010 title Smt. Vidyawati vs. Sh. Point No. 2 (Final Order): 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil revision petition is dismissed in view of fact that Hon'ble Apex Court of India in SLP No. 13527 of 2012 decided on 16.4.2013 revived order dated 13.9.2011 passed by H.P. High Court in civil revision No. 111 of 2010 title Smt. Vidyawati vs. Sh. Karam Chand and others relating to monthly use and occupation charges to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) subject to further directions issued by High Court in final order dated 26.4.2012 relating to same building and in view of fact that Hon'ble High Court of H.P. vide final order dated 26.4.2012 did not change monthly amount of use and occupation charges to be paid by tenants relating to same building except mode of payments. Revisionist will pay use and occupation charges proportionate to area of demised premises in possession of revisionist compare to co-tenant Smt. Vidyawati. File of learned Rent Controller along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs. Civil Revision No. 66 of 2015 is disposed of. All pending applications also disposed of. All interim orders vacated.