PANKAJ L. KOTHARI Vs. T.K. NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be the defendant in a suit for ejectment pending before the Court of Small Causes. The petitioner has resisted the suit on the ground that there is no jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and in fact the owner of the property continues to receive rents from the petitioner and this has been raised in the written statement filed in the suit. Incidentally, it further transpires that the landlord as claimed by the petitioner, has filed a suit as an indigent person claiming that there is no sale deed executed by him in favour of the petitioner and the purported sale deed set up by the present respondent, who is the plaintiff, is a got -up document and that it is not binding on him. And that the suit is yet to be registered, in view of the plaintiff therein seeking to sue as an indigent person and in the meanwhile, an application was filed by the present petitioner in the Court of Small Causes seeking that there be a stay of further proceedings in view of dispute over title to the property which is pending consideration in the pending suit filed by the person said to be the landlord of the present petitioner. The court below has passed a considered order rejecting the application and incidentally has opined that a suit filed by a person as an indigent person would not be considered to be registered as a suit till such time the prayer to sue as an indigent person is granted and therefore, has rejected the application. This reasoning being erroneous, is one of the grounds on which the present petition is filed.

(3.) AFTER having heard the counsel at length, this Court is of the opinion that even if the reasoning of the court below was debatable in holding that the suit filed as an indigent person was not a suit in the eye of law, the petitioner has still not made out a case for stay of further proceedings, since the mere filing of a suit to claim that a registered sale deed is not binding on the executant thereof would not by itself be a ground to stay the eviction proceedings which are independently pursued. Secondly, the contention that if the person claiming to be the landlord of the petitioner should succeed in the suit and in the meanwhile, the petitioner being evicted from the premises would result in injustice, is a natural consequence and the petitioner is provided with legal remedies in that regard. That again cannot be a ground to stall the proceedings. Therefore, there is not much substance in the contention that there is no jural relationship and that the petitioner continues to pay rent even to this date to the alleged landlord who is said to be the plaintiff. The petition stands dismissed.