ROSHAN LAL Vs. MOTI SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant under the plaintiff-respondent. The respondent earlier filed an application under section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for seeking his ejectment on grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting of the premises in dispute. Later on the respondent filed a civil suit claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises in dispute. The petitioner raised a plea before the learned Subordinate Judge that in view of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the latter suit he stayed. This plea did not prevail with him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice Hari Chand v. Ramesh Kumar, 1974 CurLJ 618, in which a learned Judge of this Court has laid down that even if section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to such a case, the subsequent suit should be stayed under the inherent powers of the Court. Sitting in Single Bench, I am bound to follow this judgment with respect. I accordingly allow this petition and order that the civil suit shall remain stayed till the final decision of the petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.