C.R. No.7962 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7962 of 2010 Date of Decision: 07.12.2010. M/s Guddu Cycle Works .……Petitioner Versus Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Respondents have initiated eviction proceedings under the Punjab Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 and Punjab Gram Panchayat (Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1976 against the petitioner. During pendency of the said eviction petition, petitioner herein filed application Annexure P-1 for adjourning the eviction petition sine die alleging that petitioner is tenant under landlord of the suit property and suit of the landlord against respondents, who have filed the eviction petition, was decreed by Civil Court vide judgment Annexure P-2 and first appeal was also dismissed and second appeal is pending in this Court. Petitioner, therefore, prayed that till decision of the regular second appeal by this Court, eviction petition be adjourned sine die. Competent authority under the Eviction Acts mentioned above dismissed the said application vide order dated 20.10.2010 which is also part of Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of C.R. No.7962 of 2010 -2- the Constitution of India to challenge the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Presently there is no material on record except bald assertion of the petitioner that he is tenant under Vidyawati etc. whose suit was decreed vide judgment Annexure P-2. Consequently, there is also no material on record to depict that the property from which eviction of the petitioner is sought is part of the suit property involved in suit decided vide judgment Annexure P-2. On the contrary, all these questions have to be adjudicated upon by the competent authority while deciding the eviction petition. No ground for adjourning the eviction petition sine die to await decision of this Court in RSA No.981 of 1994 is made out. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. No ground for adjourning the eviction petition sine die is made out. Application Annexure P-1 moved by petitioner for this purpose is misconceived and untenable and has been rightly dismissed, although the impugned order is sketchy and non- speaking. The revision petition is also thus without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 07.12.2010. A. Kaundal