* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + C.M(M) No.1482 of 2007 % Date of decision: 21.01.2008 Smt. Chameli Devi & Ors. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shyam Kishore, Advocate versus Chander Singh & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra & Ms. Sonali, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? VIPIN SANGHI, J CM No. 15748/2007 in CM(M) No.1482/2007 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) No.1482/2007 & CM 15747/2007 2. This petition has been preferred against an order dated CM(M) No.1482/2007 page 1 of 6 5.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E- 4/07/05 whereby the petitioner's application under Section 10 CPC for stay of the eviction proceedings was rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller. The respondent has preferred the aforesaid petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of subletting of the tenanted premises by the tenant stated to be one Shri Krishan Hari, to Shri Bansi Lal, since deceased. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of late Shri Bansi Lal. 3. Shri Bansi Lal had preferred a civil suit claiming that he was the tenant in the suit premises. This suit was decreed by the learned sub-judge on 13.5.1996. However, the said decree was set aside by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in first appeal on 3.11.2000. RSA No.2/2001 has thereafter been filed by the petitioner which is stated to be pending in this Court. The admitted position is that there is an order of stay of dispossession by the Court in the said second appeal and consequently till the disposal of the said appeal the possession of the petitioner is in any case protected. 4. The aforesaid application was filed by the petitioners on the ground that since the issue with regard to the status of late Shri Bansi Lal and thereafter the petitioners qua the suit property is pending adjudication in this Court, which is also the issue to be CM(M) No.1482/2007 page 2 of 6 determined by the Rent Controller, the eviction proceedings should be stayed. Mr. Shyam Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said Shri Krishan Hari has in fact been set up by the respondent-landlord. Shri Krishan Hari filed a written statement admitting the creation of sub-tenancy by him in favour of Shri Bansi Lal and thereafter he has not been appearing in the eviction proceedings. He submits that the learned Additional Rent Controller was wrong in concluding that Section 10 of the CPC would not be applicable to proceedings before the Rent Controller. For this he relies on the Rules framed under the DRC Act, particularly Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 which states that the Code of Civil Procedure is generally to be followed. Rule 23 reads as under: “23. Code of Civil Procedure to be generally followed.- In deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act and these rules the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” 5. He also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh (through LR's), AIR 1999 SC 482. In paragraph 41 of this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Rule 23 of the Rules framed under the Act provides that the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal should as far as possible CM(M) No.1482/2007 page 3 of 6 be guided by the provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that it is absolutely necessary for the Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal to see that the provisions of Statute, rules and Code of Civil Procedure are strictly complied with in all proceedings before them. He submits that the Court of the Rent Controller being a court of limited jurisdiction, the question of title has to be determined by civil court. For this proposition he relies on Smt. Vidyawanit vs. Tokan Dass, 1974 Rajdhani Law Reporter 23. 6. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “10. Stay of suit.- No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of [India] established or continued by [the Central Government] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court]. Explanation.- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in [India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that for the grant of stay of the suit under the said provision by the court, amongst other things, the other suit should also be one for the grant of the relief claimed in the suit of which stay is sought. The suit filed CM(M) No.1482/2007 page 4 of 6 by the petitioner which is now in second appeal, was not a suit seeking the relief of eviction. In fact, that was the suit filed by the petitioner who claims himself to be the tenant and was not one filed by the landlord at all. Consequently, in my view the said provision does not apply in the facts of the present case. 8. Even otherwise , I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order since no serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case the eviction proceedings are proceeded with. Admittedly, the possession of the petitioner is protected in the second appeal pending in this Court. In the meantime, on account of the said pendency of the second appeal, the eviction proceedings are stayed and eventually the said second appeal is dismissed, the respondent/landlord would suffer undue hardship, inasmuch as, the proceeding in the eviction petition would got unduly delayed. On the other hand even if an eviction order is passed in the eviction proceeding against the petitioner, the petitioner would not suffer any prejudice since his possession has been protected till the disposal of the second appeal and in case he succeeds in the second appeal and finding of the civil court that late Shri Bansi Lal was the tenant of the respondent is restored, the effect of the said finding would be that the eviction order that may be passed in the eviction petition filed by the CM(M) No.1482/2007 page 5 of 6 respondent would get nullified. Consequently, in my view the impugned order does not call for any interference. Dismissed. January 21, 2008 VIPIN SANGHI, J. aj CM(M) No.1482/2007 page 6 of 6