ORDER : Instant Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lays challenge to order dated 8.10.2020, passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby objections preferred by the respondent –Judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as the Judgment debtor) to the execution petition having been filed by the petitioners-Decree holder (hereinafter referred to as the Decree holder), came to be allowed and as a consequence thereof execution petition filed by the decree holder came to be dismissed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that Decree holder sought eviction of judgment debtor from the demised premises on the ground that building is 100 years old and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Apart from above, Decree holder claimed that he bondafidely require the building for re-building and re-construction and same cannot be done without eviction of the tenant. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 19.03.2013 partly allowed the petition filed by Decree holder and held that the building housing the demised premises is bona-fide required by the Decree holder for rebuilding and reconstruction and that cannot be carried out without the eviction of the judgment debtor therefrom. While holding judgment debtor liable to be evicted from the demised premises, learned Rent Controller observed that eviction would be subject to production of necessary sanction/ approval order passed by competent authority, permitting Decree holder to raise a new construction in place of the present one. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order of eviction passed by Rent Controller (Annexure P-1), judgment debtor preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority under Rent Controller Act, who vide order dated 8.10.2020 though upheld the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller, but set-aside the condition with regard to production of necessary sanction/approval order passed by the competent authority, permitting Decree holder to raise new structure in place of old one. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision rendered by Appellate Authority, judgment debtor filed Civil Revision No.100 of 2014, titled Sanjeev Sood (Bhagra) versus Raj Kumar Sood & others, before this Court. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision rendered by Appellate Authority, judgment debtor filed Civil Revision No.100 of 2014, titled Sanjeev Sood (Bhagra) versus Raj Kumar Sood & others, before this Court. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31st October, 2017 though dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction of the judgment debtor/tenant from the demised premises, but subject to the condition that judgment debtor/tenant shall be evicted from the demised premises only upon production of necessary statutory sanctions/approvals granted by the competent authority is concerned (Annexure P-2). 5. Record reveals that prior to passing of judgment dated 31.10.2017 in Civil Revision No.100 of 2014 filed by the judgment debtor, Decree holder had filed an execution petition bearing No.54/10 of 2013 (Annexure P-3), seeking therein execution of eviction order passed by Rent Controller on 19.03.2013. Besides above, Decree holder also preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the imposition of condition of production of necessary statutory sanctions/ approvals by the competent authority by this Court in its judgment dated 31.10.2017, which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the pending execution petition, which was filed in the year 2013, judgment debtor/respondent preferred objections, which came to be allowed vide order dated 8.10.2020 passed by Rent Controller, Shimla District Shimla, H.P., as a consequence of which, execution petition having been filed by the Decree holder was dismissed being not maintainable. In the aforesaid background, Decree holder has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned order dated 8.10.2020 passed by Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. 6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is unable to accept the submission made on behalf of learned counsel representing the petitioners-Decree holder that executing Court below has failed to appreciate the facts as well as law in its right perspective, rather this Court finds that Court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and by no stretch of imagination order impugned in the instant proceedings can be said to be against the law. Mr. Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioners-Decree holder, contended that once condition with regard to production of approved/sanctioned map at the time of passing of order of eviction has been held to be bad and illegal by Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment given in case titled Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood and others (2013) 5 SCC 243 , Executing Court while executing the eviction order ought to have ignored the condition imposed by Rent Controller as well as this Court in Civil Revision Petition with regard to production of approved/sanctioned map. He further argued that otherwise also, material available on record clearly reveals that Decree holder was able to prove on record that map qua the premises in question stood sanctioned in the year, 1997 and since within a period of one year of sanction of the map D.H. had commenced the construction, there was no requirement of renewal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that otherwise on account of deletion of provisions contained under Section 251 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, there was no occasion, if any, for him to get the sanction renewed. 7. Mr. Sumit Sood, learned counsel representing the respondent-Judgment debtor while supporting the impugned order strenuously argued that executing court cannot go beyond the order/judgment sought to be executed and as such, finding given by Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Dass Sharma case (supra) with regard to no requirement of production of sanctioned/approved map is of no consequences as far as present petition is concerned. He further argued that approval/ sanction of map, if any accorded in favour of Decree holder in the year, 1977 is/was with regard to alteration and addition of the building, whereas eviction of JD in the case at hand has been ordered on the ground of re-building and re-construction subject to production of approved/sanctioned map. Lastly, Mr. Sood, further submitted that once SLP having been filed by Decree holder is pending adjudication, wherein he has specifically laid challenge to condition of production of approved/sanctioned map imposed by learned Rent Controller as well as this Court in Civil Revision petition, execution petition having been filed by him is otherwise not maintainable. 8. It is not in dispute interse parties that vide order dated 19.03.2013 Judgment debtor was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises by Rent Controller, subject to production of approved/sanctioned map by the petitioners-Decree holder. 8. It is not in dispute interse parties that vide order dated 19.03.2013 Judgment debtor was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises by Rent Controller, subject to production of approved/sanctioned map by the petitioners-Decree holder. Though, aforesaid finding with regard to production of approved/sanctioned map was set-aside by the Appellate Authority in the appeal having been field by the Judgment debtor, but same again came to be reimposed vide judgment dated 31st October, 2017, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing Civil Revision No.100 of 2014, having been filed by the Judgment debtor, laying therein challenge to judgment passed by First Appellate Court, affirming eviction order passed by Rent Controller, meaning thereby with the passing of judgment dated 31st October, 2014 in Civil Revision No.100 of 2014 order of eviction dated 19.3.2013 passed by Rent Controller has merged in the judgment dated 31st October, 2017, passed by this Court in CR No.100 of 2014, wherein admittedly this Court while affirming order of eviction on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction made eviction subject to the production of approved/sanctioned map. It is also not in dispute that though Decree holder in the year, 2013 after disposal of appeal having been filed by the Judgment debtor before the Appellate authority under Rent Controller Act filed execution petition, but same remained pending on account of pendency of Civil Revision, having been filed by the Judgment debtor in this Court against the judgment passed by Appellate Authority. It is also not in dispute that Decree holder being aggrieved on account of condition imposed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the Civil Revision of the Judgment debtor with regard to production of approved/sanctioned map, has filed SLP, which is pending adjudication. Since, no further appeal, if any, against order of eviction on the ground of re-building and reconstruction has been filed by the Judgment debtor, same has attained finality but as per order passed by Rent Controller and Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision, eviction of the Judgment debtor can only be effected after production of approved/sanctioned map. 9. Though, Sh. 9. Though, Sh. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Decree holder while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 16.8.2013, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.125 of 2012, wherein Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Dass Sharma case (supra) has held that Decree holder is not required to produce the sanctioned/approved plan before the Executing Court, argued that there is no requirement of production of sanctioned/approved map, but this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner and accordingly same is rejected. 10. It is well settled by now that the Executing Court while executing the order/judgment/decree sought to be executed cannot go beyond the directions contained in order/judgment/decree sought to be executed. No doubt, it clearly emerge from the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Dass Sharma case supra, that Hon’ble Apex Court set-aside the direction issued by High Court while affirming the eviction order passed by Rent Controller that landlord shall submit a plan of reconstruction for approval of local authorities and only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authorities decree of execution shall be available for execution, but careful perusal of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case (supra) reveals that Rent Controller in that case while determining the bona-fides of the appellant/landlord has recorded the finding that the landlord had admittedly obtained the sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, but yet High Court imposed condition, as has been taken note hereinabove. Though, this Court finds no application of the aforesaid judgment in the case at hand because facts in both the cases are quite distinct but yet if submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no condition with regard to production of approved/sanctioned map could be imposed by Rent Controller while ordering eviction in the light of afore judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Dass Sharma case supra , same cannot be taken into consideration in the instant proceedings, wherein this Court is only to see whether judgment sought to be executed is being executed/implemented in terms of the directions contained in the judgment/order sought to be implemented/executed. No doubt, in the execution petition executing Court on the basis of totality of material made available before it can proceed to decide whether order/decree/judgment sought to be executed, is executable or not, but in the case at hand, it is Decree holder, who is seeking eviction in execution petition, which has been made subject to production of approved/sanctioned map by the Rent Controller as well as this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.100 of 2014. Once Rent Controller as well as this Court in Civil Revision petition have specifically ordered that eviction would be subject to the production of sanctioned/approved map, it will not be open for this Court in the instant proceedings to ascertain correctness of the aforesaid finding/direction. 11. In the case at hand, Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act while affirming the eviction order passed by Rent Controller set-aside the condition with regard to production of approved/ sanctioned map imposed by Rent Controller but this Court in Revision petition having been filed by the Judgment debtor not only re-imposed that condition, but also observed in the order that since building exists/situate in core area, plan for reconstruction and rebuilding of demises premises needs statutory sanction and approval from the competent authority. Aforesaid finding returned by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil revision petition still holds good because learned counsel for the petitioner-DH has not been able to produce any document suggestive of the fact that in Special Leave Petition having been filed by him, aforesaid judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision has been stayed. Till the time aforesaid finding is not stayed or upset by the higher Court i.e. Apex Court, condition with regard to production of approved/sanctioned map imposed by Rent Controller as well as this Court in Civil revision petition cannot be said to be bad in law and necessarily required to be enforced at the time of eviction of Judgment debtor in terms of eviction order passed by Rent Controller and further upheld by this Court in revision petition. 12. 12. Next plea of Decree holder in the case at hand that careful perusal of order dated 5.11.2018, issued by Municipal Corporation, Shimla clearly reveals that sanction accorded vide No.706, dated 23.9.1977 is valid on account of deletion of Section 251 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act is of not much relevance and consequences as far as present case is concerned. Aforesaid plea deserves outright rejection on account of specific finding returned by this Court in Civil Revision No.100 of 2014 that demise premises fall in core area and special permission is required to be taken for construction in that area. Special restriction upon construction on the core area was imposed in the year 2000 and as such, any construction after said period would be guided by the permission, if any, granted after year 2000. 13. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that sanctioned plan No.705, dated 23.9.1977, which has been heavily placed reliance upon by Decree holder, is with regard to alternation and addition and as per letter dated 23.9.77, this sanction was to remain in force for one year and in case construction of building is not commenced within a period of one year from the date of sanction, sanction would be deemed to have been lapsed. Though, Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to letter dated 5.11.2018 issued by Municipal Corporation, Shimla vehemently argued that construction on the site had commenced within a period of one year from the date of sanction, but that may not be of much relevance because sanctioned plan No705, dated 23.9.1977, clearly reveals that it was for alternation and addition, whereas eviction in the case at hand has been ordered on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction. Decree holder has himself claimed that building is 100 years old and is unsafe for human habitation, meaning thereby for reconstruction and rebuilding entire building is required to be demolished and rebuilt, if it is so, sanctioned plan No.705 dated 23.9. 1977, whereby only permission was granted for addition and alteration cannot be said to be valid sanction plan as is otherwise required to be produced by DH for seeking eviction of the JD from the demised premises. 14. 1977, whereby only permission was granted for addition and alteration cannot be said to be valid sanction plan as is otherwise required to be produced by DH for seeking eviction of the JD from the demised premises. 14. Since, Decree holder has been not able to produce approved/ sanctioned map for rebuilding and reconstruction of the demised premises, objections having been filed by the Judgment debtor qua his eviction from the demised premises have been rightly allowed by the Executing Court. 15. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed. Needless to say, Decree holder is always at liberty to file fresh execution petition after approval/sanction of the map for rebuilding and reconstruction of demised premises or after order/judgment, if any, rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the SLP quashing and setting aside therein condition imposed by Rent Controller as well as this court with regard to production of approved/sanctioned map. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.