Civil Revision No.2878 of 1982 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2878 of 1982 Date of Decision : 01.08.2011. Smt. Shankuntla Devi ....Petitioner Versus Sham Lal and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local news papers 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. M.L.Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Hemani Sarin, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) On 17th March, 2000, the following order was passed by this Court:- “This revision petition is filed by the landlady. The petitioner had filed rent petition in the Court of learned Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent on the ground of non- payment of rent and on the allegations that the respondent had materially reduced the value and utility of the premises. The petitioner was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground of non-payment of rent. However, the appellant authority reversed the judgment and dismissed the petition vide its order dated 9.8.1982. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent did not remain present. Civil Revision No.2878 of 1982 2 Hari Ram father of the respondents was the tenant. It was pleaded by him in the written statement that the petitioner had sold the premises in question to him and executed an agreement to sell. The sale deed was executed but the same was not registered and for that suit for specific performance is pending. The lower Court has believed that the petitioner had denied the execution of the agreement to sell. This fact is amply proved by the judgment Ex.D.1 which not only proves the agreement to sell between the parties but also suit for specific performance was decreed against the petitioner. It is contended that the appeal against the said judgment is pending. The lower Appellate Authority has held that the landlady had agreed to sell the demised premises to the respondent and the effect of that was that the tenancy did not remain intact. If the landlady wanted to enforce her right against the tenant it was for her to establish that under the agreement that tenancy shall remain intact. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the appeal has been filed against the judgment for specific performance. The question remains that if there an agreement to sell the premises the possession of which is obviously with the respondents, they will get advantage of such meaningful situation that will create title in them. When the respondents are likely to get title because of the agreement to sell then the question regarding title requires to be determined first. If the petitioner had filed appeal against the judgment then it will be proper to wait till decision of the appeal otherwise, it will result in anomaly. In view of the above reasons,it is ordered that this revision is stayed till final decision of the matter which is an appeal against the order Ex.D.1. The appellant shall move this Court for further proceedings after decision has been arrived in the said appeal.” Civil Revision No.2878 of 1982 3 Since no application was filed by the petitioner before this Court in terms of the order dated 17th March, 2000, the office sent a notice to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on 18.4.2011 which was duly received by him on 19th April, 2011. The case was listed for hearing on 03.06.2011 and on request made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned for today. Ms. Hemani Sarin, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that they are not in contact with the petitioner and a registered letter was sent to the petitioner through his counsel in the lower Court. However, no reply has been received. In view of the position as stated above, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. 01.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge