M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE revisions by the petitioner Kanhaiyalal are directed against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nathdwara dated 18 11 -1985, whereby, the petitioner Kanhaiyalal's application Under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC was rejected and the application of Mst. Mangi Bai Under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC and of Babulal (defendant) Under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC were allowed and both of them were plaintiffs in the suit.
(2.) IT is necessary to state a few relevant facts in order to correctly appreciate the controversy in the present revision petitions. One Mst. Tammu Bai widow of Shri Sunderlal Chordia filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction of the suit -shop. Inter alia, it is alleged by her that the shop in question was an ancestral property of Babulal and Basanti Lal and her husband Sunderlal Choridia. After the death of her husband, the suit shop fell to the share of Babulal and Basantilal and the plaintiff was given a right to recover the rent for her maintenance. In exercise of her right, she let out the shop in question to Himmatlal on 1 -12 -1968 at rate of Rs. 57/ -per month. The tenancy was oral. Mst. Tammu Bai died on 21 -8 -1983. Her daughter Mangi Bai submitted an application Under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC on 30 -9 -1983 that she may be substituted as a plaintiff in place of Mst. Tammu Bai.
(3.) THE defendant Babulal submitted an application on 30 -9 -1983 Under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC. He prayed for his transposition as plaintiff. It was alleged by him that he is a co -landlord along with Basantilal and as such he is entitled to be transposed as plaintiff in place of the deceased Mst. Tammu Bai.;