GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Ambala Cantonment, who on 20th of January, 1968, declined to stay proceedings in the ejectment application before him. The petitioner Gurcharan Singh has been a tenant of the suit Premises, house No. 4264/2, Hill Road, Ambala Cantonment, for many years. At first, the petitioner was a tenant of a Muslim owner and after his migration to Pakistan became a lessee of the Custodian. In course of time, house No. 4264/2 came to be transferred to one Chuni Lal. There was an agreement of sale with regards to this property executed on 17th of August, 1935 between the petitioner and Chuni Lal. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 5,400, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid at the time of the execution of the agreement. The balance of Rs. 3,400 was to be paid before the Registrar at the time of registration. It may be mentioned that the sale deed had to be executed within two years of the execution of the agreement of sale. Further, it was stipulated that the petitioner was not to pay any rent to Chuni Lal till execution of the sale deed was completed within two years.

(2.) CHUNI Lal sold the house on 3rd of March, 1966, to respondent Madan Lal, the ostensible price being Rs. 5,200/ -, though it is stated at the Bar that the actual price paid was much higher than this figure.

(3.) PLAINLY , the second application for ejectment, whose stay was sought by the petitioner, is to cause harassment to the tenant. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed this application on the ground, firstly, that the disputed question is not the same in the two applications for ejectment and, secondly, that the powers of stay have to be used sparingly. Neither of these reasons is tenable and the view taken by the Rent Controller not only shocks one's sense of justice but shows an utter ignorance of the elementary principles of law. The point to be determined in the first application pending before Shri Sawraj is really the same which is involved in the application which was filed before Shri Hari Ram. In both the applications the question to be determined is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and further if any ejectment is called for on the ground that arrears of rent remain unpaid. It may be that the period in respect of which rent had not been paid is different in the two applications, but this does not mean that the substantial question of dispute between the parties is any different.