IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 171 of 2007. Judgment reserved on 13.11.2007. Date of Decision: 16th November, 2007. Rajesh Kumar Verma …Petitioner. Versus Shiv Kumar Verma …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohinder Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. 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. 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? - 2 - 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 The grievance of the petitioner in the application is that the eviction proceedings should be stayed as the decision in the civil suit would have a material bearing on the eviction petition, that is to say, in case it is held that the land lord is not owner of the premises, the entire proceedings would fall through and would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. It is submitted that in case a decree of eviction is passed and executed against the tenant-petitioner, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 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 - 3 - 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. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that it is for the tenant to approach the Civil Court in case the question of title is disputed and, he cannot take advantage of the suit instituted by his father challenging the title of the land lord. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the civil suit, as alleged is pending final disposal. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that if a question of title is raised, it is for the civil court to determine such question and the Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the controversy. It is also beyond any pale of doubt that if the provision of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply, aid of Section 151 of the Code can be invoked to do justice between the parties and stay of proceedings can be ordered. The Rent Controller has observed that it would be open to the tenant to apply for restitution of possession of the premises in case he is dispossessed pursuant to any order of eviction which may be passed against him. It would be open to the tenant to challenge the title of the landlord, if so advised in accordance with law either by instituting a separate suit or by being impleaded in the proceedings already pending between the landlord and the father of the petitioner-tenant. He cannot ask proceedings in the eviction - 4 - petition to be stayed more especially when he himself is not litigating in any civil court independently or as a party in pending proceedings which have a direct bearing on the title of the landlord. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately. 16th November, 2007. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.