JAGDISH PARSHAD Vs. NASIR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Jagadhri, dated March 21,1975, by which the proceedings in the suit filed by the plaintiff- petitioner had been stayed

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the shop in suit belongs to Shrimati Sunheri Devi. Shri Jagdish Parshad, plaintiff petitioner is a tenant under her, who leased out the same to Nasir Khan, respondent, vide rent deed dated March 19, 1968, on a monthly rent of Rs. 125. As rent for some period was not paid by the respondent, the petitioner filed a suit for arrears of rent for the period from April 1, 1970 to November 30, 1970, which was decreed by the trial Subordinate Judge. Appeal by the respondent in the Court of the District Judge was dismissed. The second appeal (R. S. A. No. 1221 of 1974) was also dismissed by R. N. Mittal, J. in limine on September 18, 1974. During the pendency of the suit, an application for ejectment had been filed by Tarlok Chand, husband of Shrimati Sunheri Devi the owner of the property, in dispute, under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter to called the Act). An objection was taken by the respondent defendant in the suit that in view of the pendency of the ejectment application, proceedings in the suit should be stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). This objection was set aside and the judgment and decree for the arrears of rent, as mentioned above, was passed in favour of the revision petitioner. A copy of the said judgment is Exhibit P. 3. It is was held that the respondent had taken the property on lease from the petitioner and was thus liable to pay the rent.

(3.) As the respondent did not pay rent for the subsequent period also, a civil suit (No. 291 of 1973) was instituted on June 2, 1973, by the petitioner against the respondent for the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4,000/ - out of which the present revision petition has arisen. In the written statement, the respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner had been done in the earlier suit, mentioned above and inter alia contended that he was the tenant of the original owners. Ever, the execution of the rent deed had been denied. As the ejectment application filed by the original owner, even at the time of the earlier suit had not been disposed of even by then, a preliminary objection was taken by the respondent in the written statement that in view of the ejectment application in which the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is in dispute, the proceedings in the suit be stayed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed