Punit Ahluwalia Vs.
Gurjeewan Garewal  INSC 1098 (11 July 2008)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4337 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5238 of
2006) Punit Ahluwalia ...Appellant(s) Versus Gurjeewan Garewal ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Before the Rent
Controller, in an eviction proceeding, a petition under Section 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, "C.P.C."] was filed for stay of
further proceeding before the Rent Controller till the disposal of the Title
Suit pending between the parties before the civil court. The said prayer was
rejected on merits after due consideration. Thereafter, instead of moving the
higher court, the tenant again applied before the Rent Controller by filing a
petition for grant of stay though this time the petition was labelled as a
petition under Section 151 C.P.C. The said application was allowed by the Rent
Controller and further proceeding before him was stayed till the disposal of
the civil suit in the absence of any further material or fresh cause of action
for filing the same. The said order has been unfortunately confirmed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
...2/- -2- Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Rent Controller
having rejected the petition under Section 10 C.P.C. on merits was not
justified under law in entertaining the second petition for grant of stay by
only changing its label from Section 10 to Section 151 C.P.C. in the absence of
any fresh cause of action or new ground or further materials. Learned counsel
further submitted that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed the
revision application without even considering that there was any justification
whatsoever for the Rent Controller to entertain the second petition for stay.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent tried to take us through
the merit of the suit.
In our view, merit of
the suit is not subject matter in the present appeal. The only question which
called for consideration of the High Court and this Court is as to whether upon
the second petition for grant of stay prayer should have been granted or not.
It appears that the High Court for the reasons best known to it had side-
tracked the main issue and disposed of the revision application, which was
wholly unjustified. In our view, the Rent Controller was not at all justified
in entertaining the second petition for grant of stay and granting stay. In our
considered view, the High Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in
it in refusing to entertain the revision application and interfere with the
order passed by the Rent controller.
appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the Rent
Controller ....3/- -3- whereby it stayed the proceeding before it are set
aside and the Rent Controller is hereby commanded to dispose of the proceeding
within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
After disposal of the case it must report the matter to this court. It is made
clear that unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to any of the parties
and all attempts made by the tenant to prolong the litigation shall be
Delhi, July 11, 2008.