Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.@mdashThe present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 2.6.2010 (Annexure P7), passed by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, whereby he declined the application, filed by the petitioner that till the decision of the civil suit, proceedings arising out of the eviction petition be kept in abeyance. The application for staying the proceedings in the ejectment petition was declined by the Rent Controller, on 2.6.2010, by observing as under:
...6. After hearing the arguments and from scanning of the case file, it reveals that Bimla Devi filed an ejectment application on 25.5.2004, wherein the respondent filed a written statement on 3.4.2005 whereas he alleged that a will was executed in his favour in the year 1996 but that factum are very much in the knowledge of the applicant/respondent on the day of filing of instant written statement of the amended ejectment application but why he did not incorporate or took the plea regarding ownership on the basis of will, it means that instant application filed just to lingering on the proceedings of the present case and moreover, I think the ejectment application is not required to be stayed because in the written statement, respondent Paramjit Singh admitted the relationship and if he admitted the relationship as a landlord and tenant, then he cannot be allowed to withdraw himself from the same. From these observations, I am of the opinion that the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel for the applicant/respondent Paramjit Singh are without any force, therefore, the application is dismissed.
2. This Court is of the view that the order of Rent Controller suffers from no infirmity. Rather the conduct of the petitioner is such that no favour could be shown to him by the Rent Controller.
3. The petitioner is a tenant in Shop No. 77, 78 and 79, Bazaar No. 7, Ferozepur Cantt. It is admitted that this shop was taken on rent by him from Smt. Sunder Bai at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month in the year 1994. She expired on 28.10.1997. After the death of Smt. Sunder Bai, her legal representatives filed an eviction petition. The eviction petition was instituted on 25.5.2004, wherein it was specifically stated by them that they inherited the shop in question from Smt. Sunder Bai and thus, they are landlords of the shop qua the petitioner. The petitioner disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant by urging that Smt. Sunder Bai had only one son namely Babu Lal and the persons, who filed the eviction petition, have no relation with Smt. Sunder Bai. It is stated that an issue was also framed by the Rent Controller to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant.
4. The written statement to the eviction petition was filed on 9.4.2005 (Annexure P2) wherein it was nowhere stated that the tenant had succeeded to the property, on the basis of unregistered will made by Smt. Sunder Bai. On 18.1.2007, a civil suit was filed by the petitioner in the Civil Court for declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the property of which he was tenant. It was pleaded therein that Smt.Sunder Bai had made an unregistered will in favour of the petitioner and he was not aware of the same.
5. In the present revision petition, it has been averred that the petitioner received a copy of will dated 5.5.1996 from one Rajesh Kumar in the first week of January 2007. The filing of the civil suit is nothing but a ploy to delay the proceedings emanating from eviction petition.
6. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine.
