Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the Munsif, Jodhpur City, dated 29th October, 1958, and arises in the following circumstances:
(2.) ONE Mst. Sada mortgaged her shop to Radha Kishan Shrimali on 13th January, 1913, for Rs. 2,000/ -. After the death of Mst. Sada, the respondents as also Jankidas deceased claimed to be her heirs,, and redeemed the mortgage on 5th January, 1954. Rambux, who was the tenant under the mortgagee, executed a fresh rent-note in favour of Jankidas and his sons, the three respondents, Sohanlal, Kedarlal, and Madanlal. Ram Bux subsequently discovered that Mst. Bachi and Mst. Javatri were the heirs of Mst. Sada, and obtained a sale of the equity of redemption from them on 20th June, 1957. Rambux then gave notice to the respondents on 24th June, 1957, offering to redeem the mortgage as he had acquired the equity of redemption from the proper heirs of Mst. Sada. The respondents did not accept that Rambux had acquired the equity of redemption, whereupon Rambux filed a suit for redemption on 16th July, 1957, in the court of Munsif, Jodhpur City. This was suit No. 247 of 1957, and is now pending in the court of Munsif, Jodhpur District where it had been transferred. The respondents thereafter instituted a suit on 3rd September, 1957, for ejectment of Rambux, and that suit which is No. 257/57 is pending in the Court of Munsif, Jodhpur City. Rambux made an application to the Munsif, Jodhpur City, in suit No. 257 of 1957 that it may be stayed till decision of suit No. 247 of 1957 instituted by him. The learned Munsif rejected the application on 29th October, 1958. Ram Bux has come in revision aggrievd by the aforesaid order. Learned counsel relied on the observations of Lord Russel of Killowen in G. H. C. Ariff vs. Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur (l) reproduced in Pirbux vs. Mohomed Tahar (2 ). In either of these cases the facts were not disputed. In the present case, the court will have first of all to find whether Mst. Bachi and Mst. Javatri and not the respondents were the heirs of Mst. Sada. In the meanwhile, the status of Rambux will continue to be of a tenant of the respondents. If, therefore, Rambux has incurred the liability of eviction by a determination of the tenancy according to law, there is no reason why the suit for eviction filed against him should not be permitted to proceed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Rambux contended that on the facts stated in the plaint, the defendant Rambux had not incurred any liability for ejectment. That is a matter on which no opinion can be expressed by this Court, but which will have to be gone into by the court which tries the circumstances of the present case. No good case has been made out for stay of suit No. 247 of 1957. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. .;