C.R. No.1308 of 1992 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1308 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2009 Smt. Shanti Devi .......Petitioner Versus Pirthi Singh and another ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. On the tenant's application for staying of trial of the proceedings on the ground that between the persons claiming to be the landlord and her sons, there was a civil suit pending and in view of dispute between the parties as to who was the owner, the rent control proceedings were required to be stayed. The Rent Controller relied on the decision of this Court in Bisham Vir Singh Vs. Madan Lal 1988 (2) RCR 163 that on equitable considerations if there was a civil court decree, it will have a direct bearing to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. It was competent for the Rent Controller to stay his own proceedings till the conclusion of the civil suit. 2. There is no representation for the petitioner and I have the assistance of learned counsel for the respondents to go through the C.R. No.1308 of 1992 (O&M) -2- case file and pass appropriate orders. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the civil suit was disposed of and her instruction was that there was an appeal pending against the said decision. The case is of the year 1992 and an indefinite stay of the proceedings before the Rent Controller for a final conclusion of the civil proceedings between the landlord and her sons could be unjust. The landlord's application could succeed or fail only by her ability to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and the question whether she proves herself to be entitled to the property wholly or only a fractional share or has to cede the entire right of property to her sons by any decision of the Civil Court will have very little bearing to the decision before Rent Controller. The rent control proceedings shall not be made to await the decision of the Civil Court for the scope of the proceedings operate in different fields where in the rent control proceedings it is the status of the landlord viz-a-viz the tenant and his right of claiming rent from the tenant that decides the issue of the entitlement or otherwise of the landlord to obtain eviction, while in a civil suit the proprietary rights of the property could be decisive and no matter that a particular landlord is even found to be not the owner of the property, it would still be possible for such a person to apply for eviction against a person who had entered into a relationship as a tenant. 4. I have another reason to take different view from how the trial Court dealt with. The pendency by civil revision for more than nearly two decades for a final conclusion of the Civil Court is neither just nor equitable. The order of stay, which was granted, is vacated C.R. No.1308 of 1992 (O&M) -3- and the civil revision is allowed. However, if it transpires in evidence that the landlord has resorted to the action only as one of the legal heirs of the previous landlord and if ever there should a consideration of whether the tenant was justified in not paying the rent, the Rent Controller would be well within his powers to afford an opportunity to the tenant to pay the rent to the landlord and make the non-payment after such specific directions conditional for ejectment. Subject only to this right to the tenant, the civil revision is allowed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 19, 2009 Pankaj