Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This revision application is directed against an order dated the 16th June, 1988, passed by Mrs. Santoshi Tigga, Munsif, 1st court, Chapra, in Eviction suit. No. 15 of 1987, whereby and whereunder she rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for stay of the aforesaid suit propertied to be under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure till the partition suit No. 87 of 1966 pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, 8th Court, Chapra. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement contending therein inter alia that he had been paying rent to the father of the plaintiff-opposite party and not to the plaintiff, in other words, the contention of the petitioner in the suit was that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiff and the defendant. The petitioner has brought on the record that a partition suit is pending which includes the suit premises also in the Court of Subordinate Judge being partition suit No. 37 of 1966. 3. In his application purported to be under Sec. 10 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner prayed for stay of further proceeding of the aforementioned eviction suit, inter alia, on the ground that unless the said partition suit is decided, the question as to whether the petitioner is the owner in respect of the suit premises or not cannot be decided. 4. By reason of the impugned order, the learned Munsif has rejected the stay application on two grounds. Firstly, it held that, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sharfuddin and Ors. V/s. Bibi Khatija and Anr. 1967 PLJR (FB) 978, a suit, at the instance of one of co owner is maintainable. Secondly, the learned Court below held that the application filed on behalf of the petitioner purported to be under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable, inasmuch as the issued which were involved for a decision in the aforementioned eviction suit are not substantially same which require a decision in partition suit No. 37 of 1966. 5. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had contended in his written statement that he had not been paying rent to the plaintiff, the Full Bench decision is not applicable. The learned Counsel in this connection has drawn my attention to Paragraph 26 of the aforementioned judgment and submitted that the plaintiff could not be said to be the landlord within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. Secondly, the learned Counsel contented that, as the petitioner had challenged the title of the plaintiff, the issue as to whether the plaintiff is the owner in respect of the building in question or not is pending decision in the aforementioned partition suit also and, thus, according to the learned Counsel, the provision of Sec. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable. In this connection, the learned has relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Arun General Industries Ltd. V/s. Rishabh Manufacturers Private Ltd. and Ors. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel, I am of the view that this application has no merits. 7. A person who is a landlord within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the said Act is entitled to maintain a suit for eviction irrespective of the fact as to whether he is actually the owner thereof or not. By necessary implication, the petitioner has admitted that the plaintiff is one of the co-owners in respect of the building in question. Thus, there is absolutely no doubt that in sum and substance the petitioner has admitted the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiffs suit was maintainable even if it be assumed that he had filed a suit as co-owner in respect of the tenanted premises. Secondly, the issues which are involved in the aforementioned partition suit are not and cannot be the issues involved in the eviction suit. The issues involved in both the suits absolutely distinct and separate. Secondly, the issues which are involved in the aforementioned partition suit are not and cannot be the issues involved in the eviction suit. The issues involved in both the suits absolutely distinct and separate. The partition suit is pending for a decision amongst the co-sharers with regard to the question as to whether a party thereto is entitled to a particular share or not and secondly as to which portion of the properties involved therein would be allotted to which co-sharer. In the eviction suit, the principal issues are as to whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiff and the defendant petitioner and secondly whether the plaintiff can obtain a decree for eviction as against the petitioner by proving the factor one or the other enumerated in Sec. 11(1) of the said Act i.e., inter alia as to whether the petitioner is defaulter and whether the premises in suit is bona fide required by the plaintiff opposite party or not. These issues obviously cannot be decided in the partition suit. Thus, the issues involved in the eviction suit are substantially not the same issues which are pending decision in the aforementioned partition suit. 8. In this view of the matter, the revision application is dismissed but on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.