SAJ FLIGHT SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. LOUIS PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P5 order, in W.P.(C) No.9227 of 2004, had been passed by the Rent Control Court, Trivandrum in I.A. No. 1716 of 2004 in R.C.P. No.52 of 2003, a petition filed by the Revision Petitioner herein who is the counter petitioner in the R.C.P. Likewise, Exhibit P6 order, in W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2004, had been passed in I.A. No. 1717 of 2004 in R.C.P. No. 28 of 2003 of the same Rent Control Court.

(2.) Interim applications had been filed by the petitioners herein requesting that trial of the R.C.Ps. may be stayed in view of the circumstances that a suit filed by the petitioner as O.S. No. 172 of 2003 is pending before the Sub Court, Trivandrum, seeking for specific performance as there was an agreement between the parties for the sale of the buildings concerned from which the building owner had backed out. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondents have agreed to sell their property and part payment towards the agreed consideration had been paid and the respondents filed R.C.Ps. for evicting the petitioner from the petition schedule building without justification. Order thereon would have adversely affected the claims of the petitioner which were ultimately to be decided by the Sub Court in the suit for specific performance. Therefore, relying on S.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has contended that the Rent Control proceedings are to be stayed. The said applications were rejected by the Rent Control Court and these Writ Petitions have been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in P. V. Shetty v. B.S. Giridhar ( AIR 1982 SC 83 ) in support of his case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it was a case where S.10 of the C.P.C. would not have any application and he relied on the decision reported in Sathyanarayan Chettiar v. Rent Controller ( 1992 (2) KLT 298 ). He had also adverted to the decision in K.C. Sivaraj v. M.T. Padma & Anr. ( 1995 (2) KLT 912 ) which would show that the contentions raised by the petitioner are without any merit. In fact it is seen from the orders that the Court had occasion to go through the above legal positions.