MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS case reminds me the saying, "Fools construct and wise live, wiser are those who don't pay rent and wisest are those who claim the demised premises as their own".
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Kuchaman City dated May 1, 1992 by which he has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner moved under Section 10, C.P.C. for stay of the ejectment suit filed against him by the plaintiff-non-petitioner on the ground that his previously instituted application for obtaining probate of the Will left by the deceased landlord in his (defendant-petitioner tenant) favour is pending. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. The petitioner Rameshwar Lal was in possession of the demised premises situated in Kuchaman City as a tenant of late Madan Lal. Madan Lal died in the year 1985. After his death, Rameshwar Lal filed an application for the grant of probate of the Will alleged to have been left by late Madan Lal in his favour. The application is being seriously opposed by the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar. Thereafter, Lalit Kumar son of late Madan Lal filed the present suit for the recovery of rent and ejectment against the petitioner Rameshwar Lal with the averments that after the death of the landlord Madan Lal, the tenant Rameshwar Lal (petitioner) started paying rent to him, paid rent for about two years and issued a note to him admitting him as his landlord. In this suit, an application under Section 10, C.P.C. was moved by the petitioner Rameshwar Lal and it was dismissed by the trial Court as said above.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Rameshwar Lal that the decision of the probate proceedings will have impact upon the suit filed by the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar for ejectment of the petitioner Rameshwar Lal and as such the trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the application. He further contends that if the provisions of Section 10, C.P.C. are not applicable the trial Court should have allowed the application under Section 151, C.P.C. He relies upon P.V. Shetty v. B.S. Giridhar, AIR 1982 S.C. 83, Krishnan v. Krishnamurthi, AIR 1982 Madras 101, Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Swadeshi Sugar Supply (Pvt.) Ltd., AIR 1983 Calcutta 199 and Heeralal v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1953 Rajasthan 84.;