PAPPU KUMAR SINGH Vs. SUBHAS SAHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated Nov. 17, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah, District- 24-Parganas (South) in Title Suit No. 146 of 2014. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application of the present petitioners, as the defendants, under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code") praying for, stay of all further proceedings of the aforementioned suit till the disposal of Title Suit No. 353 of 2014, pending before the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Sealdah.

(2.) The petitioners filed the suit, Title Suit No. 353 of 2014, against Sefali Saha, Jhantu Saha and the opposite parties, before the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division), (hereinafter referred to as "the first suit") claiming a declaration that they are the tenants under the defendant no. 1, Sefali Saha, in respect of the suit properties described in schedule "A" and schedule "B" to the plaint and that the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4, that is, the present opposite part nos. 1 and 2 and Jhantu Saha have no right, title and interest over the schedule "A" and schedule "B" properties, decree for delivery of vacant, peaceful possession of the schedule "A" suit property and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their vacant, peaceful possession of the schedule "B" suit property. In the plaint filed in the first suit it is alleged by the petitioners that in terms of a tenancy agreement dated Nov. 28, 2013 between themselves and the defendant no. 1 Sefali Saha they are the tenants in respect of three rooms, along with right of user of common bathroom and privy on the ground floor of Premises No. 14/C Lokenath Bose Garden Lane, P.S. Topsia at a monthly rental of Rs. 500.00. They alleged to have paid a refundable sum of Rs. 6,00,000.00 to the defendant no. 1 and/or her nominee, the defendant no. 4 Jhantu Saha. The petitioners further alleged that although they are the tenants under the defendant no. 1, Sefali Saha in respect of the three rooms, but they were delivered possession of only two rooms, being the schedule "B" suit property and in spite of they paying the monthly rent of Rs. 500.00 to the defendant no. 1 possession of the third room, being schedule "A" suit property has not been delivered to them and the defendant nos. 2 and 3, the present opposite parties are threatening and intimidating them to vacate the schedule-"B" suit property.

(3.) In Nov., 2014 the present opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 146 of 2014, against the petitioners, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah (hereinafter referred to as "the second suit"), claiming a decree for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property, that is, the two rooms which is the same as schedule "B" of the first suit. In the plaint filed in the second suit, it is the case of the present opposite parties that they are the joint owners of the Premises No. 14C, Lokenath Bose Garden Lane and the petitioners, the defendants in the suit, are the licensees in respect of the suit property, that is, the two rooms of the said premises without any licence fee who were allowed to occupy the said two rooms till the last day of April, 2014 but even after expiry of the month of April, 2014 the defendants petitioners did not quit and vacate the suit property. The present petitioners, as the defendants are contesting the said second suit, they filed their written statement and on the date fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs' witness in the second suit, the petitioners filed the application under Sec. 10, read with Sec. 151 of the Code, praying for stay of all proceedings of the second suit which was rejected by the learned Court below by the impugned order. The learned Court below held that the principal issue involved in the second suit is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain the decree for recovery of possession against the defendants as licensees under them in respect of the suit property, which cannot be adjudicated in the first suit by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah. According to the learned Court below, the relationship of the defendants in the second suit with Sefali Saha, the defendant no. 1 in the first suit, as tenants and landlords in respect of the three rooms, being schedule "A" and schedule "B" properties of the first suit is not the matter of adjudication directly and substantially in the second suit, although it may be a matter of adjudication collaterally and incidentally involved in the second suit on the perspective that the said Sefali Saha is the mother of the plaintiffs in second suit and the defendants in the second suit took such plea in the written statement.