JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. Various points have been raised in the present writ petition but this writ petition is confined to the relief sought for quashing the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Moradabad in Rent Control Revision No.2 of 2007 (Annexure 15 to writ petition). 3. Brief facts for the disposal of the present writ petition are that petitioners' claim to be owner of residential building namely Krishna Bhawan along with six shops, which is part of the said building. A registered sale deed was executed on 26.4.1983 by the owner of the property Sri Vishnu Kumar. It appears that predecessor in interest of respondent No.2 as well as some other persons claiming ownership of the property in question, filed a suit as Suit No.319 of 1982 for injunction and defendants were arrayed as party in the said proceedings. The suit is still pending and subsequently it has been converted into suit for declaration. The tenants of six shops inclusive shop in dispute were paying rent to petitioners after purchase of the said property. As there was some dispute, therefore, lower Court permitted the tenants to deposit the said rent under Section 30 Sub Clause 2 of the Act. Petitioners challenge the said order by filing various writ petitions except Writ Petition No.4033 of 1984. Ultimately, writ petition was decided and deposit made by tenants were held to be valid and decree of eviction was set aside by this Court. However, Smt. Jai Bala was held to be entitled to withdraw the amount of rent which was deposited by tenants under Section 30 Sub Clause 2 of the Act. Review application of respondents was filed. That was also disposed of. 4. In the meantime, respondent No.2 filed an application to got the shop in dispute to be declared vacant and to get it released. The order was passed then a revision was filed before the District Judge and revision is still pending for consideration. In another Suit No.800 of 2003 filed by petitioners seeking relief of injunction against the tenants that they may be restrained from giving possession to respondent No.2. The said suit is still pending and respondent no.2 has been impleaded as party. In another Suit No.800 of 2003 filed by petitioners seeking relief of injunction against the tenants that they may be restrained from giving possession to respondent No.2. The said suit is still pending and respondent no.2 has been impleaded as party. He made an application for impleadment and has prayed that till decision of Suit No.319 of 1982, which is regarding the title between the parties, this suit should remain stayed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the revision filed by petitioners, petitioners have also prayed that proceedings may be stayed till Writ Petition No.4033 of 1984 is pending before the trial Court. On 31.1.2008, respondent no.1 passed an order that petitioners can approach the High Court for obtaining the interim order. Then petitioners again move an application in the light of the fact that Original Suit No.319 of 1982 had been made on leading case, therefore, the proceedings in the revision be stayed till final decision of the said suit to avoid any complication. 5. The respondent filed an objection stating therein that Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable. By order dated 5.3.2008, the Court below has rejected the application by saying that proceedings of release is not identical as it is in revision.? Hence, this writ petition has been filed by petitioners. 6. Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that this Court has already passed an order and when the ex-parte vacancy order was passed that was challenged by means of writ petition before this Court as Writ Petition No.4054 of 2005 that was decided on 2nd May, 2006 and the matter was remanded back to respondent no.1 to pass fresh orders in accordance with law impleading petitioners as party to the proceeding. When revision was filed by petitioners, then on an application made by respondents, a separate issue as Issue No.9 was framed, which was decided on 29.3.2007. In that case, an objection was taken by respondents that in view of pendency of Suit No.319 of 1982, it will be appropriate that till decision of said suit, proceeding should be kept in abeyance and that order was passed rejecting the claim of petitioners on an objection filed by respondents. In that case, an objection was taken by respondents that in view of pendency of Suit No.319 of 1982, it will be appropriate that till decision of said suit, proceeding should be kept in abeyance and that order was passed rejecting the claim of petitioners on an objection filed by respondents. Now by order impugned, revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 5.3.2008 has not accepted the contention of petitioners to this extent that the proceeding in view of pendency of Suit No.319 of 1982 should be kept in abeyance. The said contention has been rejected. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in Original Suit No.800 of 2003, when respondent prayed for stay of the proceeding under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code? till the disposal of Suit of 1982 then on the objection raised the contention of petitioners was rejected. But in the similar proceeding of vacancy, which itself arises out of the dispute between the parties, the court below has refused to stay the proceeding. 7. On the other hand, Sri Singh learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that only on the condition submitted before the Court, the petitioners were permitted to withdraw the rent only on the ground that ultimately the party who wins the case, he will be entitled for rent. The question of ownership has not been decided. This shop is exclusive of six shops which is under dispute between petitioners and respondent and admittedly in a suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court, it has been held that he is the landlord of the property, therefore, he is entitled to receive the rent. 8. After considering the submissions made on behalf of parties, I am of view that admittedly Suit No.319 of 1982 is still pending for consideration between the parties whether the petitioners are the owners or respondent and the person who is holding a better title. Unless and until that is decided, releasing a shop or declaring a vacancy, in my opinion, will not be appropriate in the interest of justice to give possession to one of the parties, which still has not yet been decided that who is the owner and landlord of the property in question. In suit No.800 of 2003, similar application filed by petitioners under Section 10 of the Act, the proceeding was stayed. In suit No.800 of 2003, similar application filed by petitioners under Section 10 of the Act, the proceeding was stayed. But in this case on a an objection made by respondents, it was held that it is not necessary to stay the proceedings in spite of the fact that all the courts including this Court has given an opinion that the matter be decided after the decision of Suit No.319 of 1982. 9. In such situation, I am of the opinion that revisional court was not justified in rejecting the application. The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by revisional court dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 15 to writ petition) is hereby quashed. It is made clear that now the proceeding will be initiated or decided after the decision of Suit No.319 of 1982. 10. As this has been informed that this Court has already directed the court below to decide the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5 of 2006 within a period of six months, therefore, there is no necessity to pass any affirmative order in this writ petition to this extent. 11. No order as to costs.