...'<^ c^y •f' yL.^ ^y ^ '(aS»(B8S!^ s-y..--1" '^^' •^T' ^ >" ^y •^ tt' ^ IN THB HIOH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. AT BHASFUR (C.G.l Civil Revision No.: -' / 2006. APPUCANT: - (Defendant) ^ Hussaiai Bhat, Age-85 Yrs. S/0 Mohd. Ali, R/0 -Khaparganj, Bilaspur, District:- Baaspur, (C.G.) s^VEJR: 8 X3T S: R®spoHi>Mrr: ^^iP^^y C3haturi»hujMunarlca, Age-64 Yrs. S/0 Late Malivir Prasad M-urrarks^ R/0: - Oayatri Mandir Road, Vinoba Nagar,BUaspur District: - Bilaspur, (C.G.) -: MBMO OF REVISXON imOER SECTION 23 (B^ OP ao A<xx>auiaoDATioii COHTROL ACT : - XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^ R-li<=h 371^T ^RWHf^n tr ^^ NFTR^, ^TTl^jS(o, 'f^TRT^; WH^P'^'W^,6.:^'.js2.?..:...'7.Z^ "V%. 2QQ^ ^^r' ^TT^T ^TTW ^TT 21.6.2006 Shri Ajad Sicldiqui, couuse^ Shri K.A. Ansad, Sr, Advo^ CQtuisel for flie respondeut..- Heaj:d 011 aclmissioii. TMs is a revision fUed u/s| Control Act agalnst flie order cla| tenaiit for stay of the proceedia c^l^f<Tzit'?T °HP:RTf ^ 1^T^ Tf^R^R ^ 3TPW ^yiT^F for fhe applicant. *ate assistedby Shri A.P, Dubey, |23(E) oftiieC.G. Accommodation t:ed 21.3.2006 passed by the Rent Coiitrollmg Auflioiity, Bilas^ur in peiidiiig case No.4- A/90(6)/2003-04 whereby aii aJ3plication fUed by the appUcaiit/ ;s of fhe aforesaid case has been- dismissed. . ' Leara.ed counselfor the ajppticaiit submifs fliat a civil suit regardiiig ov^uership of the teiia4ited premises is pendiiig between SmtKadeera Bi •& aiiother aiid' respondeut, in. which it has to b^ the'teiiaiitecl premises aiid unl^ss the ownership ofthe tenalited premises is determuied, flie pro| Act would not be' mamtaio.all reason an. appMcation for stay rhaturbhuj Murarka, ti.ie present decided as to who is fhe owner of 'eediag u/s 23(A) of the aforesaid le before the .. Rent ^ Contnjlluig Autliority (for short ffR,C,A"?).,'-Fle fdrfher submits bbth the piDceediiigs iii siinultasieous ceiinot be drawn for of'farther^proceedm.gs .before the R.C.A, filed^ which. was 41smisse(1- 13y tile 1R«C.A, Leaj.iied counsel girgues that uncler the p|:ovisioiis of Section lOofthe Cocle of Civil' Procedure,. fhe. subseq4eBt proceedm.g.beft)re th.e R,C.A, shoulct have been stayed, . %^3^ XI-HC-22 ^n^i^T f<yii4) s^^ ^}H\^ ^iRa ~5^ •^l^ld<4, ^-dly4!^, t^TRiy ^ra^n^w^. _.n:c^c^^.i^"^. 200^ ' ^R^?" 3TT^[ •i^T^R ^rificT -^- featuti'es coufts Section 10 oftlieC.P.C. pi with the tnal-of aoy suit in d:oxictly sufcstaatiaUy iii. is^ between the parties, or, or aay of tliein claim litigatmg suit is pendijig m tlie same orj jurisdiction to graiit the reUef cl^ limits of Iiidia estsAllshed or conl -ao.d haviiig like jurisdictiQU, or b| Oue of the essential proceediiigs before ttie two the proceediiigs are suits, flie staye.d, In the present.. case, R.C.A, is not a suit, thereforej pundevv of sectioii 10 of QRC, has rightly refused to stay the There is no Ulegality m tli^ not uicluied to in.terfere with tl4 merits Bnd the sam.e is clismli mamtam.ability of fhe proceeclin| pendency of suit before flie c| betiveen the two parties ie., bel Smt. Kadeera Bi & aiiotlier shall R,C.A, and necessaiy orders bet^een shaU ^mt^Fft^ ^TR'^T ^ f^t Tf^f^K ^° ^3Tf^iTr 3n^r ^vides -tiiat .ii.o court piDceed the matter iii issue is' also >Jae in a previously nistituted suit the parties under whom fliey ttuicler the same title where such aiiy other court ia India liavuig [^imed, or in any Court beyoud fhe |tm.ued by flie Central Goveniment ?fore the Suprem.e Court. of section 10 CPC is that the must be tlie siiits aad unless ^ubsequent proceediiig cannot be adn^ittedly ^iid fatth.er [ittedly the proceeding before tlie it caxinot be stayed withiii tlie the Rent CoiitroUiiig Autliority proceedings. order passed by tlie R,C.A. I am saicl order, The revision has u6 |issed, However, the question of ^s before the R,C.A, 011 account of Ivit court for declaration of title ^veen the present respouclent aaid be consicterecl aiicl decided by tiie be passed 911 fliis poyit also. ^ w XI-HC-22 ^^-?qTq7^/^7i1^^/l^<VIS^^ ^.vo^<;:.h:J.0 '"'7'^ ,'WWIT^W^- ''I^^ST' 3?T^T'^T f^ra's^f '5h^ji<=h ^rft^ ]^. 'STT^T'^TiT^R "^f^T ^- At tliis stage, leamed couii^ the final orders before tlie R.C.A. June 2006/flierefore, fhe certtfied The prayer is aJlowed. Certified Copy ofthis order •^I^^T ^jTTOf ^ -ft^ ^^?R ^3:rf^H:T^1^T »elfor tlie applicaiit submits that are goiiig to be passed 011 22nd of copy oftlie orderbe given toclay. be giveii today itsetf, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge T v?^°. ^ '^ [^^f^