Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
Before the Rent Controller, in an eviction proceeding, a petition under
Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “C.P.C.”] was filed for stay
of further proceeding before the Rent Controller till the disposal of the Title Suit
pending between the parties before the civil court. The said prayer was rejected on
merits after due consideration. Thereafter, instead of moving the higher court, the
tenant again applied before the Rent Controller by filing a petition for grant of stay
though this time the petition was labelled as a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. The
said application was allowed by the Rent Controller and further proceeding before
him was stayed till the disposal of the civil suit in the absence of any further material
or fresh cause of action for filing the same. The said order has been unfortunately
confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Hence, this appeal by special
leave.
...2/-
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the
Rent Controller having rejected the petition under Section 10 C.P.C. on merits was
not justified under law in entertaining the second petition for grant of stay by only
changing its label from Section 10 to Section 151 C.P.C. in the absence of any fresh
cause of action or new ground or further materials. Learned counsel further
submitted that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed the revision
application without even considering that there was any justification whatsoever for
the Rent Controller to entertain the second petition for stay. Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent tried to take us through the merit of the suit.
In our view, merit of the suit is not subject matter in the present appeal. The only
question which called for consideration of the High Court and this Court is as to
whether upon the second petition for grant of stay prayer should have been granted
or not. It appears that the High Court for the reasons best known to it had side-
tracked the main issue and disposed of the revision application, which was wholly
unjustified. In our view, the Rent Controller was not at all justified in entertaining
the second petition for grant of stay and granting stay. In our considered view, the
High Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in refusing to entertain the
revision application and interfere with the order passed by the Rent controller.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the High
Court as well as the Rent Controller
whereby it stayed the proceeding before it are set aside and the Rent Controller is
hereby commanded to dispose of the proceeding within six months from the date of
receipt/production of copy of this order. After disposal of the case it must report the
matter to this court. It is made clear that unnecessary adjournments shall not be
granted to any of the parties and all attempts made by the tenant to prolong the
litigation shall be defeated.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, July 11, 2008.