RAJESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. SHIV KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order of the learned Rent Controller passed in CMA No. 125/6/2007 praying for stay of proceedings of eviction which have been moved by the respondent-landlady against the petitioner.

(2.) THE application was moved by the tenant on the allegations made to the effect that a civil suit had been instituted by the father of the petitioner herein against Smt. Ritu Gandhotra and 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Sh. Shiv Gandhotra claiming a decree for declaration that the sale deed dated 17th October, 1994 executed by Smt. Ritu Gandhotra and late Smt. Soni Devi is illegal, void and inoperative in so far as the rights of the plaintiff in that suit are concerned and that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the demised premises. It is not disputed before me that the suit is pending

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller was in error in not accepting the application. He submits that Court has power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the proceedings in a civil suit in case the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply. He placed reliance on Gurdial Singh vs. The Auckland House School, Simla I.L.R. 1976 H.P. 683, , Subho Ram Kalita and others vs. Dharmeswar Das Koch and others AIR 1987 Gauhati 73 and Shiv Charan Kaur vs. Surjit Kaur 1989 (1) RLR Punjab & Haryana 241. He submits that it is for the Civil court to determine the question of title and it is not open to the Rent Controller to adjudicate where such facts emerges from the pleadings or where such a dispute is raised. He relies upon the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vijay Kumar Sud vs. Union Bank of India and another 2001 (1) RLR, Punjab & Haryana 418 and Nand Kishore vs. Ved Parkash 1999 (1) RLR Punjab & Haryana 356.