IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5157 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 16.05.2008 Parhlad Kumar ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate vs. Ravi Mohan ....Respondent(s) through None. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.9.2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal whereby an application moved by the petitioner-tenant to stay the eviction proceedings till the civil litigation between the parties is decided by this Court, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondent has been served. No one, however, appears on his behalf. It transpires that previously a civil suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in which the petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant under the respondent. Contrary to it, the respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted that the petitioner was a tenant of the mortgagee. The civil suit was, however, decided in favour of the petitioner holding him to be a tenant under the respondent. The first appeal preferred by the respondent was also C.R. No.5157 of 2007 -2- dismissed. Thereafter, he filed Regular Second Appeal No.2404 of 2004 which is pending in this Court. The respondent thereafter filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act 1973 against the petitioner which obviously amounts his implied admission to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present proceedings also the respondent has turned around and deposed that the petitioner is not his tenant and that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between them. The respondent cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. If he does not admit the petitioner to be his tenant, no petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act is maintainable. In that event, the prayer made by the petitioner to stay the proceedings till the civil litigation between the parties is decided, appears to be justified. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 15.9.2007 is set aside and the Rent Controller is directed to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the civil litigation between the parties is decided. However, if the respondent- landlord moves an application before the Rent Controller, admitting the petitioner to be a tenant though subject to his legal rights involved in the civil appeal pending in this Court, in that event the Rent Controller shall proceed further with the proceedings in accordance with law. Dasti. May 16, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE