Kerala High Court
Saj Flight Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Louis Pereira on 1 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)KLT577
Author: M. Ramachandran
Bench: M. Ramachandran, M. Sasidharan Nambiar
JUDGMENT M. Ramachandran, J.
1. Ext.P5 order, in W.P.(C) No. 9227 of 2004, had been passed by the Rent Control Court, Trivandrum in LA. No. 1716 of 2004 in R.C.P. No. 52 of 2003, a petition filed by the Revision Petitioner herein who is the counter petitioner in the R.C.P. Likewise, Exhibit P6 order, in W.P.(C) No. 9228 of 2004, had been passed in I.A. No. 1717 of 2004 in R.C.P. No. 28 of 2003 of the same Rent Control Court.
2. Interim applications had been filed by the petitioners herein requesting that trial of the R.C.Ps. may be stayed in view of the circumstances that a suit filed by the petitioner as O.S.No.172of 2003 is pending before the Sub Court, Trivandrum, seeking for specific performance as there was an agreement between the parties for the sale of the buildings concerned from which the building owner had backed out. The contention of the petitioner was that the respondents have agreed to sell their property and part payment towards the agreed consideration had been paid and the respondents filed R.CPs. for evicting the petitioner from the petition schedule building without justification. Order thereon would have adversely affected the claims of the petitioner which were ultimately to be decided by the Sub Court in the suit for specific performance. Therefore, relying on Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has contended that the Rent Control proceedings are to be stayed. The said applications were rejected by the Rent Control Court and these Writ Petitions have been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in P.V. Shetty v. B.S. Giridhar£AIR 1982 SC 83) in support of his case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it was a case where Section 10 of the C.P.C. would not have any application and he relied on the decision reported in Sathyanarayan Chettiar v. Rent Controller (1992 (2) KLT 298). He had also adverted to the decision in K.C. Sivaraj v. M.T. Padma and Anr. (1995 (2) KLT 912) which would show that the contentions raised by the petitioner are without any merit. In fact it is seen from the orders that the Court had occasion to go through the above legal positions.
4. We have no doubt about the proposition that Section 10 of the C.P.C. can have little application in such case that has been placed before the Rent Control Court. Such proceedings cannot be equated with a suit. Section 10 C.P.C. says that a Court shall not proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them put up claims and similar other circumstances. Proceedings which are pending before the Rent Control Court cannot be treated as a bar or enabling provision in which application of Section 10 C.P.C. can be sought by a tenant in occupation, for the only reason that he has filed a suit on the basis of an agreement. In the aforesaid circumstance, we are of the opinion that the Rent Control Court has rightly rejected the applications as it is incompetent.
5. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that equitable reliefs should have been extended to it as had been referred to by the Supreme Court in the decision cited. But we can only issue a direction for disposing of the pending matters without undue delay.
6. The respondents agree that there will not be any delaying tactics from their part and they will co-operate in the disposal of the suit, O.S. No. 172 of 2003 pending before the Sub Court, Trivandrum. we coord the said submission. The Sub Court may take notice of any such application and shalldispose of the suit ex peditiously, and at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Likewise there shall be some expedition in the disposal of the R.C.PS. as well, as pendency of the above after the disposal of the suit may lead to difficulties to all parties which the Court should try to avoid Writ Petitions arc dismissed with the above observations.