R.S. Kundan Lal Munshi Ram, Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory vs Krishan Kumar and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order of the Rent Controller staying the proceedings u/s 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

the petitioners filed one ejectment petition against the respondents as far back as on 26-12-1977 before the Rent Controller Fazilka, taking various grounds. The ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller, but on appeal, the same was set aside by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners then filed Civil Revision No. 2777 of 1981. The present ejectment petition was filed on 5th of May, 1987, i.e. after about 9 1/2 years. The ejectment of the respondent has been claimed on the ground of impairment of value and utility of the premises and on the ground of building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. An objection was taken by the respondents before the Rent Controller that the petition is liable to be stayed u/s 10 of the Civil Procedure because the subject matter of both the ejectment petitions is the same, and till the final decision of earlier ejectment petition, the present ejectment petition cannot proceed. The objection of the respondents was upheld by the Rent Controller and the proceedings were stayed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that the order of Rent Controller cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the earlier petition was filed on 26th of December, 1977 and the present ejectment petition was filed on 5-5-1987, i.e. after about 9 1/2 years. During this time, the landlord claimed that many more changes have been effected by the tenant in the premises and therefore, he is liable to be ejected on the ground of impairing the value and utility of the premises; It has been further stated that with the passage of time, the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In view of the changed circumstances, I am of the view that the ejectment petition cannot be stayed merely because the revision petition is pending in this Court arising out of ejectment petition which was filed as far bar as on 26-12-1977.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Rent Controller is set aside. The Rent Controller is further directed to decide the ejectment petition in accordance with law. However, it shall be open to the Rent Controller to take into consideration the judgment of the earlier proceedings at the time of deciding the ejectment petition.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 13-3-1992.