CM-16282-CII-2025 in/and CR-5062-2025 (O&M) [1] 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-16282-CII-2025 in/and CR-5062-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.08.2025 Raman Gulati ...Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Shrey Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) CM-16282-CII-2025 1. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated 01.08.2025. 2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 01.08.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal. Main case 1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16282-CII-2025 in/and CR-5062-2025 (O&M) [2] respondent-landlord had earlier filed a petition for ejectment under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1973”) for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question in the year 2018 on the ground of non-payment of rent and the copy of the said ejectment petition has been annexed as Annexure P-1. It is submitted that in the said case, subsequently, on 11.09.2019, an application was filed by the respondent-landlord under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the petition in order to include the ground of personal necessity and that the said application for amendment was allowed on 11.07.2025. It is submitted that while the earlier eviction petition was pending, on 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-6), the respondent-landlord filed another eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement and thus, the petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of CPC for staying the proceedings in the subsequent rent petition which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2024. It is submitted that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of CPC is meritorious and should have been allowed and the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 dismissing the said application deserves to be set aside. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter. 4. Admittedly, respondent/landlord had earlier filed a petition PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16282-CII-2025 in/and CR-5062-2025 (O&M) [3] under Section 13 of the Act of 1973 (Annexure P-1) in the year 2018 in which it was stated that the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent for the period from 01.11.2015 to 31.10.2018 and the eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent for the said period. Nothing has been produced before this Court to show that the petitioner-tenant had paid the said rent prior to the institution of the ejectment petition and thus, the respondent-landlord was compelled to file the said petition on the abovesaid ground. A perusal of the order dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure P-3), which is an order of provisional assessment of rent passed in the first eviction proceedings, would show that the tenant had prima facie not paid rent from 01.11.2015 to 31.10.2018 amounting to Rs.44,424/- and the total amount along with interest and costs being Rs.52,903/-, which the tenant/petitioner was directed to pay. 5. It is not in dispute that the second petition was filed by the respondent-landlord on 28.02.2023 and in the said rent petition, it was stated that the petitioner/tenant had not paid rent from 01.11.2018 to 28.02.2023, which was for the subsequent period and thus, eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent for the said subsequent period. In the second petition, the landlord had made specific reference in para 6(i) with respect to the earlier petition filed and the fact that the tenant had paid some part of the arrears of rent in pursuance of the order of provisional assessment passed in the proceedings in the first case. It was further the case of the respondent that the rent for the subsequent period was not paid thus, the said second eviction petition was filed. There is nothing on record to show that prior to 28.02.2023, the petitioner-tenant had paid rent from PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16282-CII-2025 in/and CR-5062-2025 (O&M) [4] 01.11.2018 to 28.02.2023. A perusal of order dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure P-8), which is an order of provisional assessment passed in the second eviction proceedings, would show that the tenant was again prima facie found to not have paid rent for the subsequent period amounting to Rs.72,126/- and the total amount being Rs.82,000/-, which the tenant was directed to pay. At any rate, since in both the cases, the period for which, the tenant had not paid the rent, was different, giving separate cause of action to the landlord to file a subsequent eviction petition, thus, the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 10 of CPC was completely misconceived and had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court by observing that the rent claimed in both the eviction petitions are for different periods and that unless the entire matter in controversy is the same in both the cases, the provision of Section 10 of CPC would not apply. 6. It is a known fact that a landlord is invariably forced to file several eviction petitions claiming rent for various periods on account of repeated defaults by the tenant. In a large number of cases, even when the first rent petition is pending claiming rent for a particular period upto the filing of the said rent petition, the tenant chooses not to pay rent during the pendency of the said proceedings, thus, forcing the landlord to file a subsequent petition for the subsequent period. It is a matter of settled law that subsequent defaults in payment of rent after the first eviction petition has been filed, gives a fresh cause of action to the landlord to file a second eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent for the subsequent default. It cannot thus, even remotely be said that the second petition which PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16282-CII-2025 in/and CR-5062-2025 (O&M) [5] has been filed in the said circumstances, is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC. Even on the aspect of bona fide requirement, it will be relevant to note that in the first original petition filed in the year 2018, the respondent-landlord had not raised the plea of personal necessity and it is only subsequently an application for amendment was filed by the respondent-landlord, which was, even as per the case of the petitioner allowed on 11.07.2025 i.e., subsequent to the filing of the second eviction petition on 28.02.2023. In para 6(ii) of the eviction petition dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-6), while raising the plea of bona fide requirement, the factum that in the earlier eviction petition an application for amendment had been filed which was pending, had been fairly stated by the landlord and further details had also been given with respect to additional facts, including the need of the second son and daughter of the landlord. Thus, the landlord has approached the Court with clean hands. At any rate, since in the subsequent eviction petition filed, one of the issues is with respect to non-payment of rent for a subsequent period which period is not the period of default in the first eviction petition, the same would not call for staying the subsequent eviction proceedings under Section 10 of CPC and thus, the impugned order has been rightly passed. Moreover, no law has been cited on behalf of the petitioner to show that in such circumstances, the second petition for eviction would be liable to be stayed. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil”, reported as (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CM-16282-CII-2025 in/and CR-5062-2025 (O&M) [6] of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also observed in the said judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227 but at the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court’s jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. It was also observed that the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. 8. Keeping in view the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. 9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order. 22.08.2025 (VIKAS BAHL) Pawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2025.08.26 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document