JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. Petition for ejectment on the ground of sub letting filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Kent Controller. In an appeal filed by the landlady, ejectment order was passed by the Appellate Authority. The tenant (herein-after referred to as ‘the petitioner’)] was allowed two months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he pays entire arrears of rent within one month. It is not disputed before me that the rent was not paid in terms of the orders dated March 5, 1991. Mr. R. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate for the tenant states at the bar that the rent was not deposited because the order dated March 5, 1991, passed by the Appellate Authority was not made available to the tenant. Be that as it may, a revision petition was filed in this court impugning the order of the Appellate Authority. The revision petition came up for motion hearing on 5th April, 199) when the record was summoned for 30th April, 1991. The ejectment of the applicant was not stayed. Before the case could be listed on 30th April, 1991, the landlady in execution of the order took possession of the premises on 10th April, 1991. Civil Misc. No. 2992 C. II of 1991 was filed in this court and the same came up for hearing on 12th April, 1991. In that application a prayer was made by the tenant that possession was taken by the landlady in execution of order on 10th April, 1991 and she be restrained from letting out or transferring the same. Notice of the application was ordered to be given to the landlady and in the meanwhile an ad interim order as prayed for in the application was granted. On 16th April, 1991, reply to the application was filed in which it was stated that possession was taken in execution of ejectment order and the same was let out to one Kartar Singh on 11th April, 1991. C. M. was ordered to be heard with the main case. Ad interim injunction dated 12th April, 1991, was allowed to continue though it was specifically stated in the application that the premises had been let out on 11th April, 1992.
2. Main case came up for motion hearing on 30th April, 1991 when it was adjourned to 9th July, 1991 and thereafter it was adjourned to 25th July, 1991. On 25th July, 1991 civil revision was admitted but no final order was passed in civil miscellaneous.
3. C.M.A. No. 1 of 1992 was filed by landlady praying that CM. No. 2922-C. If of 1991, which was ordered to be heard with the main case be decided. Notice of the application was ordered to be given to the counsel opposite. When the matter came up before me on 29th July, 1992, Mr. J. S. Shahpuri, Advocate, one of the counsel for the tenant was present in Court and in his presence the following order was passed :-
“Present : Mr. in L. Sarin, Seniar Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. J. S. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
In view of the fact that possession has already been taken in pursuance of the execution of the order, ad interim order dated 12 4-1991 is vacated Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate, counsel for the respondents undertakes that the respondents will not sell the property during the pendency of the revision petition. With this observation, C. M. stands disposed of.
29-7 1992 Sd./- V. K. Jhanji,
Judge."
4. The tenant has now filed the present application in which it has been stated that at the time when order dated 29th July, 1992 was passed, certain facts were not brought to ray notice and a prayer is made or recalling my order dated 29th July, 1992. It is stated at the bar by Mr. Bindra that Mr. J. S. Shahpuri was not in a position to argue the application in the absence of a copy of the application as the same was not supplied to him. He has also made a prayer that order dated 29th July, 1992 be modified or vacated.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no ground to review or modify my order dated 29th July, 1992, which is, hereby, made absolute. Under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the Court has power to stay the ejectment of the tenant. The provisions of the Act do not empower this Court to grant relief of injunction either in favour of the tenant or in favour of the landlord. There is no such provision under which a landlord landlady can be restrained from letting out or transferring the property. For such relief only remedy, if any, available to tenant or landlord is to go to the civil court. Revision petition has already been admitted. In case the tenant succeeds in his revision petition, then this court can certainly order to put back the tenant in possession. Any person who comes in possession during the pendency of the lis shall also be bound by the final decision passed in the civil revision. Consequently, the C. M. filed by the tenant is dismissed. No costs.