RANJIT PURI Vs. MOHINDER PAUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition arises from the order dated 21.11.2011 whereby the application under Section 10 CPC for stay of proceedings was filed by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that similar matters were pending in SLP No. 189 of 2011 and have been adjourned for awaiting decision of the said SLP. The Rent Controller, Chandigarh, vide impugned order, held that the counsel for the petitioner-tenant had failed to show that there is any general order whereby the proceedings of pending cases have to be stayed under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') by the High Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court and dismissed the said application and directed that the case would come up for 05.01.2012 for consideration on application on leave to defend.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner-tenant contends that the issue regarding the definition of NRI has been raised in various proceedings before this Court and in CR No. 8131 of 2010 titled Anita Sood & others v. Manjit Singh, 2011 1 RCR(Rent) 298 and a challenge was made on the ground that under the provisions of Citizenship Act, 1955 that if a person is not registered as Overseas Indian under Section 7-A of the Act, he cannot be considered to be a NRI and cannot avail any of the facilities available to him. This plea was reiterated in the said case on 03.01.2011 and it was contended that the matter is now pending before Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 4716 of 2011. It was further submitted that in Dr. Ved Pal Kaushal v. Harcharan Singh & another, 2010 2 RCR(Rent) 422, the issue was again sought to be raised that a person who had come to India before 31.05.2001, whether he would be falling under the definition of Section 2 (dd) of the Act and is entitled to seek eviction under Section 13-B of the Act and SLP No. 189 of 2011 is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Similarly, two SLP Nos. 13091-92 of 2011 are also pending decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the definition of NRI landlord. Accordingly, it is contended that the Rent Controller, Chandigarh was in error in declining the stay since the issue in dispute was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(3.) On the contrary, counsel for the respondent-landlord contends that this Court in Harjinder Singh v. Baljit Kaur, 2012 1 RCR(Civ) 184has considered this issue and held that the definition of NRI has already been clarified in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, 2005 2 RCR(Civ) 492and Sohan Lal v. Swaran Kaur, 2003 2 RCR(Rent) 407. Therefore, there was no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh.