IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No.20533-CII of 2011 in/and Civil Revision No.2416 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.12.2011 Ram Kishan -----Petitioner Vs. Sandeep Bajaj & another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the applicant-respondent No.1. Mr. Rajneesh Narula, Advocate for non-applicant-petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 15.4.2008 of the Rent Controller, Kurukshetra, whereby prayer of the petitioner for staying proceedings in the ejectment petition No.16 of 2007 titled as Anil Kumar Vs. Kalyan Das and another was rejected. 2. The brief facts which emerge out from this revision petition are that Anil Kumar (predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1) filed an ejectment petition claiming himself to be the landlord and owner of the shop in dispute and sought C.R. No.2416 of 2008 ejectment of Kalyan Das, respondent No.2. However, the petitioner moved an application for staying the proceedings in the aforesaid ejectment petition submitting that Anil Kumar (predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1) had entered into an agreement to sell the shop in dispute in his favour, vide agreement to sell dated 16.12.2004 and he had already filed a suit for symbolic possession by way of decree for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell which was pending and since the question of title was involved and the Rent Controller was not competent to decide the same, the ejectment proceedings in the ejectment petition be adjourned till the decision of the civil suit. While dismissing the prayer of the petitioner, the Rent Controller vide impugned order observed that the instant rent petition was filed earlier to the civil suit filed by the petitioner and further that the rights of the petitioner on the basis of aforesaid agreement to sell dated 16.12.2004 were yet to be established, which could be done only in the civil suit, and in the instant petition, the Rent Controller was to decide only the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the time of filing of the rent petition. 3. This petition was admitted on 22.8.2008 and further proceedings before the Rent Controller were stayed. The respondent No.1 has filed Civil Misc. Application No.20533-CII of 2011 seeking that the revision petition be listed for final hearing 2 C.R. No.2416 of 2008 as the civil suit filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Civil Court. 4. Notice of this application was given to the counsel for the petitioner-non-applicant and vide order dated 20.10.2011, the main revision petition was also ordered to be heard along with this application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in this petition as well as in the impugned order and other documents placed on record of the case. 6. Without going into the controversy further, it is suffice to say that only prayer of the petitioner before the Rent Controller was that proceedings in the ejectment petition be stayed till the final decision of the suit titled as Ram Kishan Vs. Sandeep Bajaj & others pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra and admittedly, the said civil suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 27.7.2011. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, which could not be disputed, no further cause of action survives. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. 8. Dismissed. December 12, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 3