1999 (10) TMI 747 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for stay under Section 10 CPC in Civil Revision Petition.
2. Connection between Rent Control proceeding and civil suit.
3. Jurisdiction of Rent Controller to invoke Section 10 CPC.
4. Scope of inquiry in Rent Control proceedings.
5. Application of underlying principles when Section 10 CPC does not apply.

Analysis:

1. The Civil Revision Petition was filed seeking a stay of RCC No.11 of 1995 pending the disposal of OS No.45 of 1995. The petitioner in OS No.45 of 1995 sought specific performance of an agreement of sale against the respondents. The lower Court dismissed the application under Section 10 CPC for stay, stating that the parties in both proceedings were not the same and that Section 10 CPC did not apply to non-suit proceedings.

2. The petitioner contended that despite not being suits, the underlying principle of Section 10 CPC should apply as the issues in both proceedings were substantially the same. The respondents argued that there was no connection between the Rent Control proceeding and the civil suit, and the scope of inquiry in both proceedings was different. They cited judgments stating that the Rent Controller cannot stay proceedings invoking Section 10 CPC.

3. The Court considered the scope of inquiry in both proceedings. In the civil suit, the main issues were the validity of the agreement of sale and the status of respondents as bona fide purchasers. In the Rent Control proceedings, the focus was on rent default and landlord's requirement for personal occupation. The Rent Controller's jurisdiction was limited to determining the denial of title by tenants, not title disputes.

4. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller's role in Rent Control proceedings was summary in nature, and the Rent Controller could not decide on title disputes. Even if eviction was ordered, the plaintiffs in the civil suit could recover possession later. The Court held that the Rent Controller's inquiry and the civil suit's issues were distinct, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition seeking a stay of the Rent Control proceedings.

5. Despite the petitioner's reliance on underlying principles when Section 10 CPC did not directly apply, the Court found no valid grounds to stay the Rent Control proceedings. The judgment highlighted the different scopes of inquiry in the two proceedings and concluded that the petitioner would not suffer prejudice by not staying the Rent Control proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs, and the interim stay was vacated.