Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 29.8.2009 by which the application filed by petitioner regarding staying of proceedings in suit which was filed by respondents as P.A. Case No. 21 of 2003 has been rejected.
(2.) IT is the case of petitioner that petitioner is enjoying possession of the property in dispute which is in the shape of two shops as owner. The possession of petitioner was uninterrupted, therefore, impliedly, petitioner can be treated to be owner of the said shops and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents. It appears that proceedings was initiated by respondents, under section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority in the year 2003 and the case was registered as Case No. 21 of 2003. The case proceeded ex parte. When the petitioner came to know, he filed application for recalling of said order and said application was allowed on 30.7.2005, then in the month of January, 2006, the petitioner filed a suit before Civil Judge being Suit No. 13 of 2006 for deceleration that the petitioner has become owner of property in dispute by virtue of his adverse possession. An application for injunction was also made. Petitioner has also filed written statement in the case filed by respondents pending before the Prescribed Authority. An application was filed by the petitioner before the Court that proceedings pending before Prescribed Authority under section 21(1)(a) of the Act should remain stayed in view of the fact that the petitioner is owner of the shops and until suit filed by petitioner, for declaration by virtue of adverse possession is decided, the proceeding in application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act should remain stayed. The Court below after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and respondents was pleased to reject the same vide its order dated 29.8.2009, hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Kshitij Shailendra has submitted before this Court that as the suit is pending for declaration, therefore, unless and until, the title is decided, the proceedings pending before Prescribed Authority under section 21(1)(a) of the Act should remain stayed as the petitioner was not having any knowledge and as soon as he came to know regarding fact of pendency of application, under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, he filed a declaratory suit in the month of January, 2006. He also placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in Jado Rai v. Onkar Prasad : AIR 1975 Alld. 413 and have placed reliance upon para. 6 of said judgment. Further, two judgments have been relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner; one is Smt. Kailashwati v. IV Addl. District Judge and others, 1980 ARC 388 and other is Nirmal Chandra Tandan v. Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others : 2003 (2) ARC 239. A further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Apex Court in M. Durai v. Muthu and others : 2007 (67) ALR 151 (SC) : 2007 (102) RD 615 : 2007 (52) AIC 256 (SC).
(3.) BY placing reliance upon these judgments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a situation where section 10 of the Act is not applicable, the Court in which suit is pending has a jurisdiction to stay the proceeding, the power to exercise is vested under section 151, C.P.C. The two other judgments of this Court have been relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in case there is a dispute of ownership of accommodation, then in that event, the rent control authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of ownership and proceeding pending before them should remain stayed till question of ownership is decided.;