JAI SINGH RANA Vs. MOHINDER MOHAN GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was a lessee of premises and against whom an eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act is pending, is the plaintiff in the Suit No. 2438 of 1993. The suit was filed in 1993 for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 12.1.1992 said to have been executed by the defendant-respondent. Pending suit, the appellant sought for an injunction underorder 39 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code praying that the defendant may be restrained from parting with possession of the property or from selling or creating any third party interest. An ex parte order of temporary injunction was granted on 1.11.93 and, upon an application by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, the learned Single Judge, by a reasoned order dated 18.8.94 vacated the interim order and observed:

(2.) The facts of the case, as appear from the order of the learned Single Judge, are that the respondent who is a retired government servant has filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-lessee before the Additional Rent Controller on the ground of his bona fide need for self occupation, after his retirement from service. While the eviction petition is still pending, the tenant filed the present suit in 1993 claiming to have come into possession of the property, upon alleged cessation of the tenancy dated 10.11.1988, under the alleged agreement of sale for Rs. 15 lakhs. He also claimed that he had paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the landlord and said he was willing to pay the balance of Rs. 13 lakhs. He also contended that the defendant-landlord, ignoring the agreement dated 12.1.92, had issued a notite on 9.6.93 claiming arrears of rent and possession. He contended that he(plaintiff) issued a reply contending that there was no question of any rent being paid or of any eviction and that in fact, no rent was claimed for 18 months from 12.1.92 (date of alleged agreement of sale and the date of the defendant's notice dated 9.6.93 and this was because of the agreement of sale. In the suit, the plaintiff filed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 for restraining the defendant from alienating the property or parting with possession in favour of others. Temporary injunction was granted ex parte on 1.11.93 and was vacated on 18.8.94 by the learned single Judge observing that the landlord had claimed that the agreement of sale was a forged document, that the landlord wanted possession after his retirement from government service and filed a Rent Control case for eviction and the same was pending. The landlord got Rs. 2.38 lakhs from his Provident fund and had no need to sell the house, the receipt for part payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to the landlord as sale consideration was not filed, that the property was under mortgage, that the tenant had not filed the alleged agreement of sale saying he had lost it and was trying to trace it. The learned Judge also observed that the Rent Control case could go on independantly of the suit and need not be stayed.

(3.) In this appeal, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that if the rent control case is allowed to go on the suit will become infructuous and has to be stayed under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code in the interests of justice. He relies upon the alleged agreement of sale and the pendency of the suit for specific performance. Till the suit is decided, the rent control case should not be allowed to go on. The landlord cannot be allowed to alienate or part with possession. The case is Vinod Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Saroj Kumari 51(1993) DLT is relied upon.