KAILASH PRASAD YADAV Vs. ARJUN PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision is directed against the order dated 20 -1 -2001, passed in title (Eviction Suit No. 34 of 1999) by Munsif, Patna City, Patna, whereby and whereunder he rejected the application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner praying therein for stayal of the suit till disposal of title Suit No. 35 of 1997.

(2.) THE relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present revision application may be stated in brief. The opposite party -plaintiff purchased the shop premises in dispute through registered sale -deed executed by Laxman Prasad Kesri on 27 -7 -1997. The petitioner -defendant had, according to the plaintiff, been tenant in respect of the premises. The plaintiff brought the suit referred to above for rejectment of the defendant -petitioner therefrom in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The defendant -petitioner denied that he had been tenant of the plaintiff -opposite party. He setup his case that his father and after his death he has been tenant in respect of the premises belonging to the father of Laxman Prasad Kesri and on 27 -12 -1975 a registered deed of agreement was executed between the father of Laxman Prasad Kesri and the father of the petitioner in terms of which the letter was authorised to carry out repair of the shop premises and the and the cost incurred on repair was to be adjusted against the rent payable for the premises and if the landlord was to sell the premises, it would be sold to the father of the petitioner and after the death of father of the petitioner Ram Babu Yadav and Laxman Prasad Kesri executed an agreement to sell the premises on 27 -7 -1997 and in terms of agreement the sale -deed was to be executed in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner by making an application in the Court of Munsif, Patna City, contended that the parties and the subject -matter of both the suits, i.e. title Suit No. 35 of 1997 and tile, Suit No. 34 of 1999 were the same and the decision of title Suit No. 35 of 1997 would operate as res -judicata in title Suit No. 34 of 1999 and as such, it was just and proper to stay the proceeding of title Suit No. 34 of 1999 till disposal of title Suit No. 35 of 1997.