KISHORE SINGH LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Jodhpur, dated 5.8.1985 by which he has stayed the proceedings of the suit till the disposal of another suit previously filed by the plaintiff against the same defendants.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. For the disposal of this revision, the relevant facts may be briefly stated. The plaintiff Udai Raj had purchased the suit house from Shri Pritam Surana through his natural guardian Niranjan Surana. The defendant was a tenant in this house beFore this purchase and he was inFormed by the previous landlord and started paying rent to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff Udai Raj filed a suit beFore the learned Addl. civil Judge. No. 2, Jodhpur being Suit No. 539/81 praying For ejectment of the defendant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity. In that suit, the defendant denied the transfer and the attornment to the plaintiff whereupon an issue was framed to the effect whether plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Pritam surana on 1.5.1981 and the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff as his landlord paid him rent and thus the relationship of landlord and tenant came in existence between the plaintiff and the defendant.
(3.) WHILE this suit was pending, the plaintiff filed another suit before the learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur asking for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant had denied the plaintiff's title and was liable to ejectment under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In this suit, the defendant denied the fact that he had denied the plaintiff's title in the earlier suit and on this an issue was framed it the effect whether the defendant had denied the plaintiff's title in the earlier suit and, therefore, was liable to ejectment under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act. The plaintiff's evidence in this suit was over and while the case was pending for the defendant's evidence, the defendant after a few adjournments, moved an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for the stay of the proceedings of the later suit on the ground that the suit was between the same parties and involved substantially the same question as in the earlier suit. The plaintiff contested this application and after hearing the parties, the learned Munsif directed stay of the proceedings of the later suit by his order dated 5.8.1985. Hence this revision.;