Kishori Lal vs Radha Rani Gupta

N.C. Jain, J.—Respondent Radha Rani Gupta claiming herself to be the landlord filed an ejectment petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking eviction of the petitioner Kishori Lal from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioner Kishori Lal filed an application u/s 10 of the CPC for staying the eviction proceedings on the ground that a civil suit between the same parties regarding the property in dispute is pending and, therefore, the present proceedings should be stayed. The Rent Controller by his order under challenge before this Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground that there is difference between a person being a landlord and a person being an owner of the demised premises. Kishori Lal petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

Before me some of the facts have not been disputed by the counsel for the parties. It is an admitted fact that Kishori Lal is the owner of the demised premises and a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale filed by respondent Radha Rani Gupta against Kishori Lal petitioner is pending in the civil court wherein the basic question involved is whether the petitioner agreed to sell the demised premises in favour of the respondent. It is further not disputed that the ejectment application against the petitioner has been filed in which Radha Rani Gupta has claimed herself to be the landlord. It has further remained undisputed before me that the civil suit was filed after the institution of the present application for ejectment.

Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner Kishori Lal has vehemently argued that since the question before the Civil Court whether there was an agreement of sale or not pending adjudication, the proceedings in the ejectment application should be stayed u/s 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. He has argued that if the Civil Court finds that there was no agreement of sale and suit of the respondent is dismissed, the question of passing an ejectment order would not arise as in that situation no ownership rights would pass on to her.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Distinction between ''owner'' and ''landlord is quite obvious. A landlord as has been defined in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 means any person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land. Even a tenant who sublets any building or rented land is a landlord qua the sub-tenant if he is authorised to derive the title under a landlord. A tenant has been defined in the Act to mean a person by whom rent is payable for a building and rented land. The word ''owner'' in law is a person in whom title of the property vests. If a land-owner executes the rent note in favour of prospective vendee, he would become his tenant and such prospective vendee would be the landlord qoa that owner who has executed the rent note. In the rent application this is the precise case of the respondent Radha Rani Gupta, She has averred that after the execution of the agreement of sale, the premises were rented out to the petitioner Kishori Lal. Pendency of the civil suit for specific performance would not make any difference and would have no direct bearing upon the rent proceedings inasmuch as the suit for specific performance can fail on several grounds but nonetheless the application for eviction can succeed on the short ground that the tenant has failed to pay the rent. If the execution of the rent note and the non-payment of rent is proved, the landlord of the type in the present case would be entitled to seek eviction order even if title is not vested in him in the suit for specific performance.

Section 10 of the CPC is otherwise inapplicable to the facts of the instant case because suit for specific performance has been filed after the filing of the ejectment application. It is only subsequently instituted suit which can be stayed. It is highly doubtful whether Section 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure would be applicable to the rent proceedings. The Rent Controller is persona designata. The words used in Section 10 of the CPC is ''suit'' and rent proceedings before the Rent Controller in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is not a suit. In view thereof it cannot successfully be maintained that proceedings before the Rent Controller should be stayed simply because it has yet to be decided in the civil suit whether the respondent in the present revision petition would ultimately be entitled to a decree for specific performance or not.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition fails and is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.

Any observation made in the judgment would not mean any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.