TAHER ALI Vs. SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants, who are the plaintiffs in the original Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 pending in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, are calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the said Court on 24-6-1992, whereby the said Court allowed the application filed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present non-applicant, who was the defendant in the suit, for staying the proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 till the decision in Second Appeal Nos. 381 of 1989, 382 of 1989 and 386 of 1989 by this Court.

(2.) TO appreciate the controversy involved in the case, few relevant facts leading to the present controversy may be noticed. The applicants (for short the plaintiffs) initially made an application under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) before the Rent Controller having jurisdiction over the matter to permit the plaintiffs to determine the tenancy of the non-applicant Shri Shivaji Education Society (for short the defendant ). The defendant contested the application filed by the plaintiffs before the Rent Controller. One of the points for determination in the said proceedings before the Rent Controller was, whether the plaintiffs were owners and landlords of the suit house. The other issues related to grounds under Clause 13 (3) of the Rent Control Order. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence and hearing the parties arrived at the finding that the plaintiffs were the owners and landlords of the defendant and found that the plaintiffs are entitled to permission under Clause 13 (3) (i), (ii), (vi) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order. Thus, the Rent Controller by an order dated 7-12-1984 after holding that the plaintiffs were landlords, granted permission to them to determine the tenancy of the defendant. The order passed by the Rent Controller, Amravati, on 7-12-1984 was challenged by the defendant by filing an appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.

(3.) DISSATISFIED with the order passed by the Rent Controller on 7-12-1984 and affirmed in appeal by the order dated 25-3-1987 the defendant filed the writ petition before this Court, which too was dismissed on 13-7-1987. Letters Patent appeal came to be filed by the defendant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 13-7-1987, the order passed by the appellate authority on 25-3-1987 and the order dated 7-12-1984 passed by the Rent Controller, and the said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 6-10-1989. The defendant took the matter to the Supreme Court and it is not disputed that the Apex Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 6-9-1990 and thus the permission granted by the Rent Controller on 7-12-1984 attained finality. In the meanwhile, on 18-4-1987 the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant after determining the tenancy of the defendant pursuant to the permission granted by the Rent Controller and in the said suit, the defendant made an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the proceedings in the said suit be stayed till the decision of this Court in Second Appeal Nos. 381 of 1989, 382 of 1989 and 386 of 1989. It may be observed that Second Appeal No. 381 of 1989 arises out of the suit filed by the defendant, seeking declaration that the plaintiffs could not obtain permission from the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenant since they were not owners and also a prayer for injunction restraining the present plaintiffs from taking any step to determine the tenancy of the defendant. The suit for declaration and injunction filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, by the judgment and decree dated 20-9-1984. The defendant challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal and that too was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, on 20-9-1984 was upheld. The concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, and the Appellate Court are under challenge in Second Appeal No. 381 of 1989. It may be stated that in the second appeal, an application was filed by the tenant under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 filed by the present plaintiffs and the said application was rejected by this Court, with an observation that it would be open to the tenant to approach the trial Court and apply for stay of the suit on the ground that second appeal was admitted and pending in the High Court. Consequently, the defendant-tenant made an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 for stay of the suit. The Court below after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 24-6-1992 allowed the application and stayed Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 till the decision of Second Appeal Nos. 381 of 1989, 382 of 1989 and 386 of 1989.