Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The Civil revisions bearing No.1963 and 1964 of 2009 are against the dismissal of applications filed by the tenant for stay of proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit instituted by the landlord to declare that the so-called lease deed executed by the landlords power of attorney in favour of tenant was not valid. 2. The contention of the tenant was repulsed by the Rent Controller on the ground that in the application for eviction under Section 13-B, the requirement was only the proof of the NRI status, the entitlement to file a petition as owner for five years prior to the filing of the petition and that the landlord is returning to India and no other matter falls for consideration. 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the defence of the tenant as that petitions themselves were not maintainable since the lease period granted under registered documents was for a term of 30 years for establishing a Restaurant and allied business and the petitions had been filed even before the completion of the tenure of lease. Learned Senior counsel also relies on judgment of this Court in Kharaiti Ram Bansi Lal and others v. Smt. Radha Rani and another reported in 1968 PLR 978 where a Division Bench has held that if there was a Civil suit pending relating to title to the property, the Rent Controller shall adjudicate the same issue and should stay his own proceedings. Yet another decision of this Court was in Smt. Kanta Devi v. Kishori Lal and others 1986 (1) RCR (Rent) 587 where a similar procedure was laid down that when there was a question of title involved it will be only a fit case that the matter should await the decision of Civil Court. In my view these two decisions have no bearing to a case where the adjudication relating to title of the property and the status of the tenant as such are admitted facts and the landlords ownership also is an admitted one. The dispute is only with reference to tenability of the landlords action for eviction which according to him was not possible by virtue of the fact that the tenure of lease still subsisted and the landlord had no right to apply for eviction. The dispute is only with reference to tenability of the landlords action for eviction which according to him was not possible by virtue of the fact that the tenure of lease still subsisted and the landlord had no right to apply for eviction. He is thus, particularly aggrieved against the finding rendered by the Rent Controller that the Court dealing with an application under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 would not traverse beyond the factors outlined above relating to the status, ownership and return to India. Such an observation, in my view, is wrong but still the ultimate decision dismissing the application to stay the proceedings accords with law. A Rent Controller cannot fetter his own right to decide about the entitlement or otherwise of the landlord to obtain eviction and his duty to consider whether the application for eviction was maintainable even before the termination of maturity of the period of lease. The Rent Controller shall also duly consider whether there was a bona fide need of the landlord in seeking for eviction. Even still differing with the reasoning adopted by the landlord, I confirm the ultimate finding that the petitions for eviction could not be stayed during the pendency of the civil suit as referred to above. 4. The civil revisions are dismissed subject the observations made above.