Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the resister and is directed against the Order No.23 dated January 16, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 8th Bench in Misc. Case No. 4485 of 2009 arising out of Ejectment Execution No.2 of 2009 thereby rejecting the applications under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Court (henceforth shall be referred as 'C.P.C.') for stay of the two misc. cases.
(2.) The resister claims itself a sub-lessee in respect of the premises as described in the ejectment suit and its contention is that it is a sub-lessee under the tenant opposite party no.2 herein with notice to the plaintiff / decree-holder / opposite party herein. The decree-holder got a decree of recovery of possession against the judgment debtor and that decree was put into execution. At that time, the petitioner resisted the execution of the decree and for that reason, two misc. cases, one for rendering police help by the decree-holder and another claiming right, title, interest and possession over the premises in suit by the resister were filed. The evidence of both the misc. cases was closed. At that time, the resister filed two applications under Section 151 of the C.P.C. in the two misc. cases for stay of further proceedings of the said two misc. cases. Those applications were rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the resister.
(3.) Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the following facts are not in dispute:- i) In 1975, the opposite party no.1 instituted an ejectment suit being Ejectment Suit No.1212 of 1975 against Metro Golden Mayer Indian Limited & ors. ii) The said ejectment suit was compromised in December 1984, inter alia, on terms that the decree-holder would let out the premises to the judgment debtor with the right to sublet a part and portion of the said premises to other parties. iii) In February 1998, the judgment debtor granted lease for a period of 25 years to the resister by an unregistered deed in respect of the premises in suit with a covenant to renew the said lease upon determination for a further period of 25 years. iv) In 1995, the decree-holder filed a suit for ejectment being Ejectment Suit No.170 of 1995 against the judgment debtor on the ground of default in payment of rent since August 1994. v) On April 3, 2003, the resister addressed a notice under Section 26 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1995 as amended to both the opposite parties requesting the decree-holder to accept the resister as direct tenant under the decree-holder. vi) In 2003, the judgment debtor filed a suit being T.S. No.967 of 2003 against the decree-holder and the resister for decree of declaration that the plaintiff has right to realise the rent from the 4 tenants in respect of the premises in suit and for other reliefs. vii) The said title suit was dismissed for nonprosecution on June 4, 2008. viii) On June 13, 2008, the Ejectment Suit No.170 of 1995 was compromised between the decree-holder and the judgment debtor. ix) On January 13, 2009, an application under Order 21, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. was filed by the decree-holder stating that the decree was partly satisfied and as such the decree-holder intended to execute the decree for getting possession of a portion of the suit property. The said application was allowed. x) On March 30, 2009, the Ejectment Execution Case No.2 of 2009 was filed by the decree-holder for execution of the decree and the writ of possession was issued. xi) On May 20, 2009, the bailiff filed a report of obstruction and the fact that the delivery of possession could not be given. xii) On May 21, 2009, the Misc. Case No.4099 of 2009 arising out of the said ejectment case was filed by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 97 of the C.P.C. for grant of police help. xiii) On June 3, 2009, the resister filed a Misc. Case No.4485 of 2009 for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the premises in suit as a sub-tenant under Order 21, Rule 101 of the C.P.C. xiv) On July 2, 2009, the learned Executing Court rejected an application for stay of the execution proceeding filed by the resister. xv) On September 15, 2009, while disposing of the C.O.2399 OF 2009, this Hon'ble Court directed the Executing Court to hear out the said two misc. cases within two months from the date of communication of the order and that there shall be stay of all further proceedings of the Ejectment Case No.2 of 2009,and xvi) On January 16, 2010, the evidence of both the misc. cases was closed and the next date was fixed on January 30, 2010 for argument. On that day i.e. on January 16, 2010, the impugned order was also passed by the learned Executing Court. During argument, the learned Advocates of both the sides have made argument on behalf of the respective parties touching the merit of the two misc. cases. If, I discuss on the submissions touching the merits of the two misc. cases which are pending before the 6 learned Executing Court, the learned Executing Court may be biased by my observations. Therefore, I am refraining myself from discussing the submissions advanced by both the learned Advocates of both the parties on merits of the said misc. cases. Similarly, during argument, the learned lawyers of both the sides have made elaborate submissions relating to the rent control case being R.C. No.150 of 2009 and submit as to whether this application before the R.C. is barred by limitation and whether this application before the rent controller is maintainable. Since, this rent control case is pending before the concerned authority, it will not be wise and proper to discuss either on merits of the case or the fact whether it is barred by limitation. Therefore, I should also refrain myself from discussing the maintainability and the merit of the said R.C. Case No.150 of 2009.;