SH. N.K. VIJ Vs. KAMAL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, dated February 16, 1981, where by the application filed on behalf of the tenant-respondent, under Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter called the code), was allowed and the proceedings in the ejectment application, filed on behalf of the landlord-petitioner, were stayed. According to the learned Rent Controller, he was of the opinion, that the interests of justice required that the rent application should not be proceeded with till the earlier cases regarding the same subject matter which were pending between the parties, were disposed of.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in the earlier application, dated November 13, 1979, the only ground on which the ejectment of the tenant has been sought, was the non-payment of rent for three months from August 6, 1979 onwards, whereas in the application for ejectment filed subsequently, i.e. on May 24, 1980 the grounds for seeking the eviction of the tenant are altogether different, though non-payment of the arrears of rent is also taken as one of the grounds of ejectment therein. The learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the Rent Controller has rightly stayed the proceedings in the subsequent application under Section 10 of the Code and the same could not be interfered with in revision by this court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Chander Bhan Kapur v. Shrimati Sushila Devi, 1979 1 RentLR 104 and certain other authorities.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the landlord has also filed a separate suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from making any additions or alterations in the demised premises and, therefore, on the same cause of action the application for the ejectment of the respondent could not be maintained till the matter was finally decided by the civil Court. There is no force in this contention either. A landlord is entitled to maintain his application for the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds available to him under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and a suit if any, filed for the grant of a permanent injunction is on no consequence in regard to the maintainability of such an application.