HANS RAJ Vs. GAPPULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Hansraj against the order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, refusing to stay the suit brought by Gappulal and another against him.

(2.) THE fact giving rise to this revision are briefly these. Hans Raj was a tenant of Gappulal & Damodar. It is said that the landlords gave notice to Hansraj on 16-9-1950, determining the tenancy. THEreafter, a suit was filed by them on the 10th of September, 1951 in the court of the Civil Judge for recovery of damages for use and occupation for the period after the determination of the tenancy. Before this, however, the tenant, Hansraj, has filed a suit on 4-1-1951, for fixation of standard rent under Section 6, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereafter called the principal Act. As soon as the landlords filed their suit for damages for use and occupation, Hansraj applied to the Munsifs Court under Section 7 of the principal Act, for an order of stay of proceedings in the Civil Judge's Court. THEreupon the Munsif passed an order for stay of proceedings in the Civil Judge's Court under that section. When that order was received by the Civil Judge, it was argued on behalf of the landlords-opposite parties that Section 7 did rot apply to that kind of suit which was pending in the Civil Judge's Court, and, therefore, the Civil Judge could ignore the order of the Munsif. This contention has been accepted by the Civil Judge relying on a single Judge decision of this court in -- 'hanuman Bux v. Dev Dutt', AIR 1952 Raj 111. THE Civil Judge has held that the suit before him is for damages for use and occupation, and not for arrears of rents, and Section 7 has no application, and has, therefore, refused to stay the suit. THE present revision is against that order.