MAHESH GROVER, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Executing Court dated 29.05.2013 vide which the prayer of the petitioner invoked in terms of Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. to stay the proceedings in execution was declined.
(2.) THE facts may be noticed in brief. The petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises and faced proceedings under Section 13 -A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter called 'the Act'). The landlord had set up a plea that he is a specified landlord, owner of the building on the basis of a sale deed and since he had retired from public service, he required the premises for his own use and occupation. It would be pertinent to mention here that a similar petition was preferred by the landlord against another tenant residing in the demised premises and in this petition he had succeeded upto the High Court. There is no material to suggest that whether the party aggrieved from the orders of the High Court went in SLP or not. Suffice it to say that there is conclusive material to indicate that the proceedings had attained finality. In this petition, issues such as locus standi and the landlord being a specified landlord or not were all gone into upto the High Court and the plea of the tenant negated. This is necessary to state here because the learned Rent Controller while deciding the rent petition and declining leave to defend to the petitioner had relied extensively on the case of the co -tenant and the findings recorded by the Court therein. The petitioner contends primarily on the ground that had been agitated before the learned Rent Controller that the landlord retired on 31.10.2001 whereas the petition itself was filed on 30.10.2001 and, thus, he had not become a specified landlord on the day when he filed the petition and this should be a reason to discard the petition altogether.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also questions the title of the landlord and states that the sale deed in his favour was not valid. The property initially belong to one Gopal Krishan Bhalla who was an allottee under the Chandigarh Administration who sold the property to the present respondent -landlord. The plea of the petitioner is that this sale was without any consideration. It is further the contention of the petitioner that till date, the property has not changed hands from the owner i.e. the Central Government. In this regard a separate suit has been filed by the petitioner which he initiated in the year 2002. The said suit is still pending. The order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged preferred by him was also dismissed in the year 2012. The landlord then went up in execution and the petitioner filed his petition under Section 47 C.P.C. questioning once again the ownership and title of the respondent and raising a plea of fraud. These objections were dismissed on 02.01.2014. The petitioner then filed a review petition and according to the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court when he realised that the review petition is likely to be dismissed, he filed the instant application under Order 21 Rule 29 C.P.C. seeking stay of the proceedings in execution on account of the pendency of the civil suit. The Executing Court declined his prayer which is now the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.;