(1.) THIS will diipose of Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993. The dispute in both the revision petitions is between the land-lord and the tenant.
(2.) SADA Nand who is a tenant, took the premises on rent from the predecessor of Jagdish Rai and another (petitioners in Civil Revision No. 937 of 1992 ). The United Church of Northern India, Ludhiana, (briefly 'the Church') issued a notice in January, to Sada Nand, calling upon him to pay rent as it claimed to be the owner of the premises. On 12. 2 1985, a suit for declaration was filed by the Church, claiming itself to be the owner. In the suit, it impleaded Sada Nand as one of the defendants along with Jagdish Rai and, another. Sada Nand also filed a interpleader suit on l6. 6. 1985, impleading ths Church as well as Jagdish Rai and another as defendants. In the suit, he made an offer to deposit the rent in the Court, pending consideration as to who is the owner of the premises. Jagdish Rai filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (briefly 'the Act') for the ejectment of Sada Nand on the ground of non payment of rent as well as on the ground of impairment of value and utility of the premises and also change of user It was brought to the notice of the Rent Controller by the tenant that he had already filed a interpleader suit and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act are liable to be stayed. On his application, proceedings under Section 13 of the Act were stayed. This order is being impugned in Civil Revision No. 937 of 1992.
(3.) IN Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993, an application was filed by the tenant for staying of the suit on the ground that the suit be stayed till the decision of the suit filedby the Church. On the statement of the counsel for the parties, the suit was stayed. Jagdish Rai and another were permitted to revive the ejectment application pending before the Rent Controller. This part of the order has been challenged in Civil Revision No. 48 of 1993, by the tenant.