SHIV CHARAN KAUR Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgement shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1743 and 1906 of 1988 which are directed against two similar orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on 18.7.1988 in two separate applications for ejectment filed by Smt. Surjit Kaur, landlord-respondent against the petitioner. Through the impugned orders applications under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) filed by the petitioner for staying the proceedings in the ejectment applications have been dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner was a tenant and is still claimed to be a tenant by the respondent under the latter in House No. 3055, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh. The respondent filed an application for the ejectment of the petitioner from the said house by filing an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay or tender rent for the period 1.12.1983 to 30.4.1985. She filed a second application for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period 1.12.1983 to 30.9.1985. Then a third application for ejectment was filed by her against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period 1.12.1983 to 31.7.1986. It is not in dispute that out of these ejectment applications two were pending in the court of Sh. Amarjit Singh Katari, the then Rent Collector, Chandigarh and are now pending in the Court of Shri G.S. Sewak, Rent Controller. In one out of these three applications an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act and the same is still pending in the Court of Shri S.R. Bansal, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that the order of ejectment was passed by the learned Rent Controller in the ejectment application brought by the respondent, which is now the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority, despite the fact that she had taken a clear stand that the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the respondent came to an end on 1.11.1985 when the respondent had entered into another agreement of lease dated 20th October, 1985 with the petitioner's husband Shri Baldev Singh Bhalur, Advocate (hereinafter called Shri Bhalur). By virtue of the said agreement the house was given on rent by the respondent to Shri Bhalur at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. She also received Rs. 24,000/- as advance rent for one year. It was further agreed that the rent shall be increased by Rs. 50/- every year. She thus submitted that the real dispute between the parties was whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between them and whether from 1.11.1985 Shri Bhalur is a tenant under the respondent by virtue of the agreement of lease dated 20th October, 1985. She pleaded that this dispute is already before the Appellate Authority and therefore, the proceedings in these two subsequent applications for ejectment should be stayed. She invoked the provisions of Section 10 of the Code in her support.