SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Lal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.P. Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2-tenant.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner being a landlord filed an application for release of the accommodation. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties was pleased to allow the application in 2008. The respondent filed an appeal. The appeal is ripe for hearing and it has been partly heard which is apparent from the order-sheet annexed to the writ petition. When the matter was going to be decided finally, an application was filed by the respondent-tenant on the ground that some criminal proceeding is pending, therefore, the appeal should not be heard. One of the applications filed by the respondent was allowed on payment of Rs.300/- as costs. Subsequently it was listed on 17.11.2009. When the case was listed subsequently, an application was filed by the respodnent-tenant only to get the case adjourned, as such not permitting the Court to decide the appeal. Before this Court the learned counsel for respondent no.2 has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition regarding expeditious hearing of the appeal on the ground that certain forged documents were filed and on the basis of the complaint made by the respondent-tenant a criminal case is going on against the petitioner, therefore, the proceeding in the rent appeal filed by the respondent as Appeal No. 3 of 2008 should remain stayed till the decision in the criminal case.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is well settled in law that any finding recorded in the criminal proceeding cannot be taken into consideration by the Civil Court and that is not binding. Further the opposition of early disposal of the appeal by the respondent clearly indicates that respondent does not want that the appeal be decided and this way or that way he wants to remain in possession of the property. The appeal is of 2008 and it is ripe for hearing.;