IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE 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.

Leave granted.

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.

Accordingly, the 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 defeated.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, July 11, 2008.