PUKH RAJ Vs. AHMED BHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision per tition has been filed against the order dated 5.1.1995, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application pf the .tenant-defendant-revisionists moved under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code refusing to stay the proceedings of subsequent Original Civil Suit No. 357/93 under the aforesaid section on the ground that the matter in issue involved in the abovementioned suit is not directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted" suit between the same parties.

(2.) Indisputably, the previously. Instituted suit for eviction was founded on two causes of action. One of sub-letting and the other of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the land- lord-plaintiff-non petitioners as envisaged under Clause (e) and Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 17 of 1950) which was filed by the land lord plaintiff-non petitioners against the present tenant-defendant-revisionists before the learned Trial Court whereas the subsequent Suit No. 357 of 1993 for eviction is founded on only one cause of action i.e. of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the land lord-plaintiff-non petitioners as envisaged under Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act.

(3.) The aforesaid previously instituted suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 5.11.80 holding that the present tenant defendant-revisionists had sub-let the disputed premises without consent of the present landlord plaintiff-non petitioners although the plea relating to reasonable and bona fide necessity was negatived.