This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 4280/93 and 4331/93 as common questions of law and facts arise therein.
2. The petitioners in both these petitions have assailed order dated 21-2-1993 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala whereby pending the decision of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the proceedings in the two ejectment petitions filed by the petitioners were stayed.
3. Mr. Amir. Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there was no jurisdiction vested in the Rent Controller to have stayed the proceedings in the ejectment petitions merely because of pendency of a suit for specific performance instituted by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioners. In the alternative, the learned counsel has argued that the Rent Controller instead of staying the proceedings, should have consolidated the ejectment petition and the suit for specific performance and decided the same together.
4. The latter course suggested by the petitioners' learned counsel appears to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case and finds approval from the judgment of this Court in Dr. Arslan Razzaq v. A.I Hussain (PLD 1993 Lah. 97) wherein it was observed that in such circumstances, the Civil Judge, hearing the suit and trying ejectment petition as a Rent Controller should consolidate both the proceedings so as to ensure fairness to both the parties.
5. Mr. M. Farani, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has also fairly conceded that it would be conducive in the interest of justice if both the matters be tried and decided together by one Court after holding consolidated proceedings.
No order as to costs.