S.S.Kulshrestha, J. - (1.) These all the three cases are taken up together for disposal as common question of law and facts are involved. The Revision No. 350 of 1996 was brought against the order dated 23rd August 1996 passed by the learned J.S.C.C. (Sri R.K. Malviya), Etah in S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1994, Vinod Kumar Gupta and another v. Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta whereby holding that the question of title is involved in the instant case and so that plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction for making adjudication of right and title in respect of the disputed property. In this case it has been contended by the revisionists that they are the owners/landlords of 2/5th share of the property in question and the defendant Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta was permitted to continue in occupation to the extent of 2/5th share in that accommodation as tenant therein. The Eviction was sought by the plaintiff on the basis of his being landlord to the extent of the 2/5th share of that accommodation in which the defendant was residing at the monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and his tenancy was also terminated from that portion by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It has further been mentioned that on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 31st March 1987 the plaintiffs/revisionists made the purchase of the 2/5th share of the building wherein it was also stipulated that the seller would be permitted to remain in possession as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. In that regard sale document, rent receipts etc. were also filed before learned J.S.C.C. but they were not taken into consideration by that Court and erroneously came to the conclusion that the question of title is owner of the disputed house sold 2/5th Share to the plaintiff and agreed to occupy the house to the extent of transferred share as tenant. Rent receipts have also been filed by the plaintiff. In the given situation there was not a bonafide dispute as to the title if raised by the defendants. So far as the order dated 4th December 1996 is concerned, it was on an application moved by the defendant in Original Suit No. 372 of 1988 for staying the proceedings of the Suit for specific performance of agreement because he had brought another Suit for the cancellation of the deed which is the basis of the Original Suit No. 372 of 1988. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs of Suit No. 372/1998 got a registered sale deed in their favour in respect of 2/5th share in the disputed house coupled with an agreement to sell remaining ⅗th share to them. For the specific performance of that agreement this Original Suit No. 372 of 1988 was brought. The Courts below have appreciated the materials on record and arrived to an irresistible conclusion that the Suit for specific performance shall continue because the question of the validity of the sale deed/agreement may well be adjudicated in that Suit. Proceedings of the Suit No. 115 of 1996 was also stayed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etah on 13th March 1997 and dismissed the application No. 12-C (2) of the opposite parties. In both the Suits the validity of the sale cum agreement deed is in question. Later Suit (Suit No. 115/96) was rightly stayed by the trial Court as causes of action in the two Suits are the same and there are common issues directly and substantially in both the Suits.
(2.) In the given circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision No. 167 of 1997, Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Vinod Kumar Singh and others and also the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4146/1997 Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. 1st Additional District Judge, Etah and others are dismissed. Revision No. 350 of 1996, Vinod Kumar Singh and another v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta is allowed and the order dated 23rd August 1996 passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Etah is, hereby, set aside. The trial Court is further, directed to expedite the disposal of these cases.;