Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the order dated November 10, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.195 of 2006 thereby allowing an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit for eviction of a tenant and other reliefs on the ground of default, violation of the provisions of (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. THE defendant is contesting the said suit. In that suit, the defendant/opposite party filed an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of the suit stating, inter alia, that one other suit being O.S. No.7 of 2006 is pending between the plaintiff and Gouri Debi and others for determination of the title of the premises in suit and the defendant got a lawyers notice on behalf of one Pankaj Bhattacharya and others to the effect the defendant/tenant need not make any payment of rent in respect of the premises in suit occupied by him as tenant to the plaintiff till disposal of the said O.S. No.7 of 2006. Since a question of title is involved in the other suit, the application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. was filed and the learned Trial Judge allowed that application. Previously, one revisional application being C.R. No.1 of 2009 was preferred before the learned District Judge but the said revisional application was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable before the learned District Judge. Thereafter, this application was preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that initially the plaintiff/petitioner instituted the said suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of default, violation of the provisions of (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) SO, this is a suit between a landlord and his tenant for eviction and other reliefs. In order to decide the lis between the parties, all the owners need not be added as landlord in the suit. The lis could well be decided between the parties to the suit and for that reason, if there are other co-owners of the premises in suit, they need not be added as parties to the suit. So far as the stay is concerned, I find that stay has been granted by the learned Trial Judge simply on the ground that one of the parties to the said suit has asked the tenant to stop payment till the disposal of the O.S. No.7 of 2006. That suit originated on the basis of the Will executed by the original owner. One probate case was filed in respect of that Will. That probate case was being contested and for that reason, it was converted into an other suit and now it is pending for final disposal. In that suit, it shall be decided who are the beneficiaries with regard to the Will. In that suit, the issues may be as to execution of the Deed of Will. The dispute may be amongst the owners or beneficiaries of the suit property left by the maker of the Will. Therefore, the scope of dispute or parties to the suit in the O.S. No.7 of 2006 will be completely different from those of the present one for eviction. The essential conditions for stay as laid down in Section 10 of the C.P.C. have not been fulfilled. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was not, at all, justified in granting the stay on the basis of an Advocates letter. So, the impugned order cannot be sustained.;