MADAN LAL Vs. S.J. ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned order dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure P-7) by which his application for staying the proceedings in appeal initiated by the respondent under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been declined.

(2.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier he had initiated proceedings under Sec. 10 of the Act praying for grant of amenities and for repairs of the premises in dispute which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. Against this order, the respondent landlord went up in appeal, which was allowed and a revision against the same was preferred by the respondent which is still pending in this Court. Subsequently, the respondent-landlord moved a petition under Sec. 13 of the Act praying for eviction of the petitioner on the following grounds:-

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that one of the grounds which has been taken up by the respondent-landlord is that the building has become unfit for human habitation which has been determined against the petitioner by holding that the building has become unsafe for occupation and that if his revision which is pending before this Court is allowed and the amenities and the repairs which are warranted are permitted to be carried out then in such an eventuality the building would become safe and fit for habitation. It is, thus, contended that it is imperative that the proceedings in appeal which have been preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioner be stayed for the simple reason that the outcome of the revision is likely to impact the aforesaid issue.