JUDGMENT 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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 Supreme Court 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. 5. In reply, it is contended by learned counsel for the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar that the suit for rent and ejectment has been filed against the petitioner Rameshwar Lal in May, 1989, clearly averring in the plaint that he (Rameshwar Lal) paid rent to the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar for about two years after the death of landlord Madan Lal and the petitioner Rameshwar Lal has issued a note containing account of rent and admitting Lalit Kumar as his landlord and the petitioner Rameshwar Lal has not so far filed his written statement. He further contends that the Will which has been set up by Rameshwar Lal in his favour is a fabricated document and it has been forged just to create complications and to delay the disposal of the suit which has been filed against him for his ejectment. 6. There is no substance in the revision petition. The learned Munsiff, Kuchaman City has not acted with any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioner Rameshwar Lal for staying the suit filed against him for his ejectment. The ejectment proceedings and probate proceedings are distinct and different. Issues involved in two proceedings cannot be identical. There is no question of applicability of Section 10, C.P.C. 7. The ejectment proceedings and probate proceedings are distinct and different. Issues involved in two proceedings cannot be identical. There is no question of applicability of Section 10, C.P.C. 7. Now the question is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit for rent and ejectment may be stayed under Section 151, C.P.C. The suit for rent and ejectment has been filed in May, 1989 with the specific averments that after the death of Madan Lal who was admittedly landlord of the petitioner Rameshwar Lal, rent for about two years was paid by the petitioner Rameshwar Lal himself to the plaintiff-non-petitioner Lalit Kumar and a note containing account of rent in his own handwriting was issued by him (Rameshwar Lal) to the non-petitioner (Lalit Kumar) also admitting him as his landlord therein. Even after the lapse of five years, the petitioner Rameshwar Lal has not filed his written-statement. If the suit is stayed and the probate proceedings are decided in favour of the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar, he would be put to an irreparable loss. The suit for ejectment has also been filed on the ground of his reasonable and bonafide necessity. Non-filing of the written-statement for over five years by the petitioner indicates that he may cause the probate proceedings pending for long and so the ejectment suit. Admittedly, late Madan Lal (sic) petitioner Rameshwar Lal. 8. In no case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the two proceedings were similar to the present proceedings. The facts and circumstances of all the cases are quite different and distinguishable. It is correct that it has been observed in Heeralal v. Kanhaiyalal, AIR 1953 Rajasthan 184 that a Court, even though it finds that a suit cannot be stayed under Section 10, has power to stay the same under Section 151 where it comes to the conclusion that it would be a harassment to the parties to allow it to proceed pending the decision in a previously instituted suit. At the risk of repetition, it may be mentioned that if the suit for ejectment filed by the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar against the petitioner Rameshwar Lal is stayed it would cause great harassment and irreparable injury to him and, on the contrary, it would not put the petitioner to greater harassment or injury. At the risk of repetition, it may be mentioned that if the suit for ejectment filed by the non-petitioner Lalit Kumar against the petitioner Rameshwar Lal is stayed it would cause great harassment and irreparable injury to him and, on the contrary, it would not put the petitioner to greater harassment or injury. In Krishnan v. Krishnamurthi, AIR 1982 Madras 101 , it has been observed that the Court may stay proceedings under Section 151, C.P.C. if it is satisfied that it is necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the position is just the contrary. It is necessary in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court, the suit for ejectment should not be stayed. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with cost. The Munsiff, Kunchaman City is directed to decide the suit pending in between the parties within a year from today. The provisions of Order 17 Rule 1, C.P.C. will duly be taken into consideration when a party seeks adjournment.Petition dismissed. *******