JUDGMENT 1. Since in these revision petitions a similar question of law is involved, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties they are taken up together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders in both the revision petitions. 3. To decide the controversy involved in these cases, it is necessary to give separately the facts of each case in brief.S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1127/2000 4. Hamida Bano, since deceased and now represented by her heirs and Legal Representatives, claiming herself to be the landlord of the suit premises filed a suit for eviction from suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of rent against the defendant petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge Jr.Div.) (South), Ajmer being Civil Suit No.157/84.S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1178/2000 5. For the same premises the Dargah Committee, Ajmer through its President filed the suit being Civil Suit No.279/83 in the same court for eviction of the defendant petitioner from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of the rent. The Dargah Committee, Ajmer has claimed itself to be the landlord of the suit premises. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties in the Civil Suit No.279/83 filed by the Dargah Committee, Ajmer, the learned trial court framed issues no.1 and 3 which are as under, HINDI MATTER 355538 A 7. In Civil Suit No.157/84 Issue No.1 is framed which reads as under, HINDI MATTER B 8. The tenant defendant petitioner filed an application for consolidation of these two suits as in both these suits the plaintiffs have claimed that they are the landlord and they are entitled to receive the rent and possession of the suit premises. 9. The Civil Suit No.279/83 was transferred to other court but the tenant defendant petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. before the District Judge, Ajmer. The ground taken for transfer of the suit to the original court was that both the suits related to the same premises and thus they may be heard and decided in one court. The ground taken for transfer of the suit to the original court was that both the suits related to the same premises and thus they may be heard and decided in one court. The learned District Judge, Ajmer while deciding the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. on 7th of October, 1996 held that as the suit premises is the same in both the suits, it is in the interest of justice that both the suits are heard and decided by the same court. 10. The defendant petitioner filed a similar application in Civil Suit No.157/84 for consolidation of these two suits. The learned trial court by two separate orders dated 8th of September, 2000 dismissed the application, thus these two revision petitions. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the issues framed in these two suits, I am satisfied that an issue is.to be decided in either of the suit as to who is the landlord of the suit premises, i.e. Hamida Bano (since deceased) or Dargah Committee, Ajmer. The defendant petitioner undisputedly is a tenant. Both the plaintiff in these suits are claiming rent from the defendant petitioner as landlord and thus it is imperative for the court as well as the parties to get decision on this issue, who is landlord of the defendant-petitioner. 12. That apart the suit premises and the tenant are the same in these two suits. The learned trial court has not considered this aspect while holding it to be not a fit case for consolidation of these two suits. 13. Shri J.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.157/84, submitted that the application filed by the Dargah Committee for its impleadment as defendant therein, had been dismissed by the learned trial court and that order has been confirmed by this Court also in revision petition. 14. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that in these two suits the issue is to be decided who is the landlord of the tenant-defendant-petitioner for the purpose of payment of rent and taking possession of suit premises on decree of the suit. 15. 14. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that in these two suits the issue is to be decided who is the landlord of the tenant-defendant-petitioner for the purpose of payment of rent and taking possession of suit premises on decree of the suit. 15. Shri J.C. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Hamida Bano contended that if these suits are consolidated for trial, the issue has to be decided by the learned trial court re the title of the plaintiffs in the suit premises which in the suit for eviction it is not permissible. It has further been submitted that none of the plaintiffs are party in the either suits. Though at first flash, this contention appears to be attractive but where two persons are claiming to be landlord of the tenant and the premises, it has to be resolved by the Court, may be for the purpose of these suits and not the title, who is the landlord of the tenant and the suit premises. Thus, in the larger interest of the parties, both these suits are to be decided together. It is really shocking and surprising and may be not fair on the part of the plaintiffs that they want to get the adjudication of their right as the landlord of the suit premises by filing separate suits against the tenant. With all fairness, if there arises any dispute between these two lass of persons re the title of the suit, they may directly file the Suit rather than to contest indirectly. In such matter interpleader suit is not 1red. Thus keeping in view of this aspect in the suit inter-se parties, tenant and two claimants of landlords, this issue is to be adjudicated upon and decided. Even if it is taken that this revision petition is not maintainable. In view of the latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Developers & Others, JT 2003(4) SC 255 , I am satisfied that it is a fit case where this court has to exercise its powers of superintendence over the courts subordinate under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. 16. Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed as not maintainable but in exercise of the powers vest with this Court of superintendence over the courts subordinate under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Civil Suits No.279/1983 and 157/1984 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ajmer City (South), Ajmer are hereby consolidated and the learned trial court is directed to decide the same accordingly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In view of this order, the stay applications filed with the revision petitions also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******