' The relief prayed for in this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 is that the order dated 9-1-1992 of the learned Rent Controller, respondent No,2 be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and he be directed to decide the case on the basis of the evidence on the record.
2. The relevant background which can be gathered from the contents of the writ petition and other documents on the record is that the petitioner being the P.T.O.-holder of the disputed property approached respondent No,2 for ejectment of the tenant (respondent No,1) as far back as 27-10- 1984. In these proceedings respondent No,1 denied the relation of the landlord and the tenant and preliminary issues to this effect were framed in the case as given in the Order Sheet 8 dated 11-12- 1984. It is highly objectionable and extremely deplorable that thereafter the case lingered on without any cogent reason merely because of the indifference and lethargic attitude of the Presiding Officer. The order sheet No,56 dated 14-5-1989 reveals that an application for suspending proceedings in the case was submitted by the respondent which amazingly took nine months for its decision when ultimately it was dismissed on 25-2-1990, holding it as frivolous and vague.
3. The petitioner was obliged to file Writ Petition No,381 of 1991 for early disposal of the case because of the dilatory tactics adopted by respondent No,1 to keep the proceedings protracted. This writ petition was dismissed on 5-3-1991 in the following terms:-- "In the circumstances, we dismiss this petition in limine for the reason that it may prolong the matter further but direct the Rent Controller to decide the case within four months and communicate the monthly progress in the case to the Registrar of this Court."
4. After the decision of the writ petition the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 13-4-1991 and the case was fixed for 23-4-1991 for the examination of the witnesses of the respondent. However, the respondent purposely delayed the case and instead of examining his evidence again submitted an application for staying the proceedings till the decision of the suit filed by him for declaration of his ownership on the basis of his continuous adverse possession. The application was accepted through the impugned order and consequently it was held that:-- "As the question of title has not yet been decided which is to be resolved first, so, application of the respondent is accepted. This petition is stayed till decision of the declaratory suit titled Faqir Hussain v. Board of Revenue and others, civil suit pending between the parties."
' We heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides and studied the material available on the record. It is indeed pathetic that the Rent Application instituted in 1984 could not be disposed of by the Rent Controller for about 7 years. It is also deplorable that the Rent Controller failed to take notice of the fact that a similar application for staying the proceedings had already been dismissed on 25-2-1990. It has repeatedly been held that the question of title would have no relevance in the proceedings in Rent cases before the Rent Controller as there the point of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant would be the determining factor. Keeping in view this principle the Rent Controller acted without lawful authority in staying the proceedings through the impugned order and, accordingly, while accepting the writ petition this order is declared as illegal and ineffective. The Rent Controller is directed to positively dispose of the case on merits within two months of the receipt of the file and in case of non-compliance of this order the aggrieved party can approach this Court for appropriate order in the matter.