Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 153 (PAT)

Dhirendra Kumar Jain v. Md. Hassim

1996-03-12

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body1996
Judgment GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. 1. Eighteen tenants including one Md. Quashim filed Title Suit No. 52 of 1983, an Inter Pleader suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh against the State of Bihar and Khas Mahal Officer, Hazaribagh, as defendants first set and the three sons of Sugan Chand Jain as defendants second set, for declaration as to which of the two sets were their landlord. 2. Three sons of Sugan Chand Jain filed six suits for eviction of six tenants out of the aforesaid eighteen under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") The Inter Pleader suit as well as six Eviction suits were tried together. The trial court disposed of the Inter Pleader suit in terms of judgment dated 31.3.1989 and held that the three sons of Sugan Chand Jain were landlord and were entitled to receive the rent. The six Eviction suits were also decreed. 3. The tenants preferred First Appeal No. 283 of 1989 (R) before this Court. On 21.11.1989 the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable at the instance of the tenants. L.P.A. No. 152 of 1989(R) preferred against the said judgment dated 21.11.1989 was also dismissed on 26.3.1990. 4. However, against the judgment in Inter Pleader suit the State of Bihar also preferred First Appeal No. 293 of 1989 (R) which is pending disposal before this Court. 5. Dhirendra Kumar Jain, one of the sons of Sugan Chand Jain filed Eviction suit No. 30 of 1990 before the Munsif, Hazaribagh against the tenants Md. Hassim and Md. Quashim, both sons of late Dilawar Hussain for eviction from the suit premises, consisting of one shop room described in detail in Schedule A to the plaint, on the ground of default in payment of rent. 6. Md. Hassim, defendant No. l appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the plaintiffs title over the suit premises. 7. Defendant No. 1 was not a party to the Inter Pleader suit. His brother, defendant No. 2 was party to the said suit, but he did not appear to contest the present eviction suit. 8. 7. Defendant No. 1 was not a party to the Inter Pleader suit. His brother, defendant No. 2 was party to the said suit, but he did not appear to contest the present eviction suit. 8. On 12.8.1992, defendant No. 1 filed a petition under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay further proceedings of the Eviction suit till disposal of the First Appeal No. 293 of 1989 (R) pending before this Court. On 18.12.1992 a rejoinder thereto was filed by the plaintiff. By order dated 7.10.1993 the trial court allowed the petition dated 12.8.1992 and stayed the further proceedings of Eviction suit No. 30 of 1990 till disposal of First Appeal No. 293 of 1989 (R). The plaintiff has, therefore preferred this Civil Revision application against the said order. 9. While passing the impugned order the trial court observed that the matter in issue in the Eviction suit was also directly and substantial in issue in previously instituted First Appeal No. 293 of 1989 (R) before this Court and the parties were also more or less same in both the cases and hence stayed the further proceedings of the Eviction suit till disposal of the First Appeal. 10. The object of Sec. 10 of the Code is to avoid conflict of judicial decisions by preventing .courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating upon two or more parallel suits in which the matter in issue is substantially the same. Sec. 10 applies where the decision in the previous suit will definitely affect the decision in the later suit. In the present case there is no such situation. Till the decision in the Inter Pleader suit is either set aside or stayed the plaintiff is the landlord and for the cause of action having arision for filling a suit for eviction under the Act against the tenants the present suit is maintainable and the same can not be stayed under the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Code till decision in the aforesaid First Appeal. 11. I find that in terms of the judgment in the aforesaid Inter Pleader suit, the three sons of Sugan Chand Jain, including the plaintiff have been held to be the landlord and entitled to receive the rent. Besides that the six Eviction suits at their instant have already been decreed against the other tenants. 11. I find that in terms of the judgment in the aforesaid Inter Pleader suit, the three sons of Sugan Chand Jain, including the plaintiff have been held to be the landlord and entitled to receive the rent. Besides that the six Eviction suits at their instant have already been decreed against the other tenants. The Appeal preferred by the tenants, against the judgment in the Inter Pleader suit was also dismissed as they were not aggrieved persons within the meaning of Sec. 96 of the Code. 12. In First Appeal No. 293 of 1989 (R) filed by the State of Bihar against the judgment in the said Inter Pleader suit which is pending before this Court the matter in issue is the rival claims of title between the State and Jain brothers with respect to premises wherein the defendants of present suit are tenants and a such they are not directly concerned with the said issue. No order either staying the operation of the judgment passed in the Inter Pleader suit or restraining the plaintiff from receiving rent from the tenants has been brought to my notice. 13. In my opinion, therefore, the trial court committed a jurisdictional error in staying the suit under Sec. 10 of the Code till disposal of the said Appeal pending before this Court. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, Eviction suit No. 30 of 1990, pending in the court of Second Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh, can not be stayed till disposal of the First Appeal No. 293 of 1989 (R) pending before this Court under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. In the result this Civil Revision application is allowed and part of the impugned order dated 7.10.1993 passed by the Second Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh in Eviction suit No. 30 of 1990 staying the suit is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.