Civil Revision No. 5871 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 5871 of 2006 Date of Decision 3.7.2009 Rakesh Kumar .... Petitioner. Versus Indu Bala & Ors. .... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Surya Kant, J. (oral) The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.5.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar whereby his application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC to stay the eviction proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 till the decision of the suit for specific performance filed against Nirmal Kanta, Padma Wati and respondent No.1 is decided, has been dismissed. It appears that the property in dispute has been inherited by three sisters, namely, Nirmal Kanta, Padma Wati (since deceased) and Indu Bala. While two sisters are alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner, the third, namely, Indu Bala has filed an eviction petition against him under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act alleging him to be a sub-tenant. The petitioner, on the other hand has filed a suit for specific performance against the three sisters, inter alia, claiming Civil Revision No. 5871 of 2006 2 that he has been put into possession in part performance of the agreement to sell. The petitioner asserts that the issue involved in the eviction petition being identical to the issue(s) pending adjudication in the suit for specific performance, the subsequent eviction proceedings are liable to be stayed in terms of Section 10 CPC. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and keeping in view the fact that Indu Bala is admittedly not a party to the alleged agreement to sell, in my considered view the issues raised in the two cases referred to above, are not identical though might have originated out of same set of facts. No error of jurisdiction has, thus, been committed by the Rent Controller in declining stay of the eviction proceedings. However, for the better appreciation of the inter-related facts, it would be appropriate if both the cases can be entrusted to the same Presiding Officer provided that he has got jurisdiction to decide both the cases. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the learned District Judge, Amritsar, who may, subject to the objection, if any, on behalf of respondent, consider the desirability of entrusting both the cases to one Court. July 3, 2009 (Surya Kant) tripti Judge