JUDGMENT
S. Nayer Hussain, J.
1. All these three revisions have been filed by the same petitioner who was plaintiff of three suits, namely, Money Suit No. 3 of 1980, Money Suit No. 4 of 1980 and Money Suit No. 5 of 1980, all of which were fiied for realisation of arrears of rent from three tenants who were impleaded in three suits as defendants separately. In the said circumstances, all these three revisions have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment.
2. These revisions have been filed against three separate orders of the same date i.e., 26.3.1990 in the said three suits by which the learned Additional Munsif-V, Siwan, allowed the intervention petition of Lakshman Prasad in all the three suits. The said Lakshman Prasad is Opposite Party No. 2 in all these three revisions. During the pendency of these revisions the sole plaintiff-petitioner died and her heirs, namely, her husband, sons and daughters have already been substituted in her place.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit for eviction or suit for recovery of arrears of rent from the tenants are of same nature and in both such cases two questions have to be decided for the disposal of the suits; first being relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties and the second being as to whether any rent has fallen due which has not been paid and is recoverable. He further submits that in both such cases the matter is strictly between the two parties, namely, the landlord and tenant and any interference of third party is completely uncalled for and not legal and proper as it is only for the defendant to accept or deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties which the plaintiff has to prove to its hilt.
4. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in case of Baleshwar Prasad alias Baleshwar Prasad Burnwal v. Bishwanath Rani Pandit and Ors., reported in 1988 BLJ 677. Hence, he submits that in these circumstances, there was no occasion for the learned Court below to allow the intervention petition of Opposite Party No. 2 who has based his claim on the disputed question of title which can not be a subject-matter of the instant suits. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned orders of the learned Court below are illegal, arbitrary and perverse.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the original sole defendant of the said suits, namely, opposite party No. 1 submits that he has to say nothing in the matter as the aforesaid question raised by the intervenor is a matter exclusively between the plaintiff and the intervenor and it does not concern the defendant, whereas the learned counsel for the intervernor- opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this Civil Revision is not maintainable as it is against the interlocutory order which does not finally dispose of the suit. Hence, they are no longer revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure after its amendment which came into force on 1.7.2002. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiv Shakti Coop Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors., .
6. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 submits that earlier he had filed a suit for a decree of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent with interest pendentilite and damages with respect to part of disputed holding Nos. 137 and 138 against M/s. Dresco. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court and Title Appeal filed by opposite party No. 2 was also dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court against which opposite party No. 2 filed Second Appeal No. 239 of 1987 which was disposed of by this Court on 21.7.1995 by which after being satisfied about the formal defect in the suit for which sufficient ground was made out, this Court permitted opposite party No. 2 to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit after removing the formal defect. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 further submits that thereafter he filed Title Suit No. 109 of 1994 against the Firm M/s. Dresco through Raghubansh Mani and also impleading other petitioners for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for recovery of loss suffered by opposite party No. 2. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 24.9.1998 whereafter opposite party No. 2 filed Title Appeal No. 132 of 1998 which was allowed on 7.8.2003 and the claim of opposite party No. 2 was decreed holding that he had right, title and interest over the suit premises as owner and there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to that suit and the defendant of that suit petitioners had defaulted in payment of rent which was directed to be paid by the petitioners to opposite party No. 2. This Judgment and decree of the Title Appeal has been challenged by the petitioners vide Second Appeal which is pending in this Court.
7. In this connection, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Ors., . He submits that the impugned order of the learned Court below is legal and proper and required no interference.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record specially the impugned order, it is quite apparent that due to the objection of the intervenor- opposite party No. 2, a lis had arisen as to whether opposite party No. 2 was a necessary, party for the proper adjudication of the suit and the said lis has been decided by the learned Court below vide the impugned orders. Hence, in my view, according to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur (supra), the said orders were revisable under Section 115 CPC after its recent amendment which came into force on 1.7.2002. Even according to another decision of the Hon’bie Apex Court in case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., reported in AIR 2003′ SC 1561, equivalent to , the provision of Section 115 CPC would be attracted in such matters. Hence, it is hereby held that these Civil Revision are maintainable.
9. Now, so far the merit of the cases are concerned, it is not in dispute that earlier opposite party No. 2 had filed a suit for declaration of his title, eviction of the revision petitioners and recovery of arrears of rent, all of which were decreed by the civil Court of proper jurisdiction in Title Appeal No. 132/1998 and in the said judgment and decree dated 7.8.2003 it has been specifically held that not only opposite party No. 2 has got right, title and interest over the suit premises as its owner but also these revision petitioners were the tenants of opposite party No. 2 and were liable for being evicted and for recovery of arrears of rent. Hence, the petitioners themselves being the tenants of opposite party No. 2, there is no question of any valid relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and opposite party No. 1 until the said judgment and decree passed in the said Title Appeal is reversed or set aside by this Court in the Second Appeal which is pending.
10. It is further apparent from the records of the case that the earlier suit filed by opposite party No. 2 was not merely with respect to declaration of title, in which case the claim of the petitioners might have been valid, but the earlier suit of opposite party No. 2 was also with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant, eviction of the revision petitioners and recovery of arrears of rent and hence, the nature of that suit was practically the same as of the instant suits; the only difference between the two sets of suits is that in the earlier order it had been held that the petitioners were tenants of opposite party No. 2 whereas in the instant suits the petitioners claim to be the landlords of opposite party No. 1. Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, opposite party No. 2 was clearly a necessary party for full, final and proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suits.
11. Accordingly, all these Civil Revisions are dismissed and the impugned orders are affirmed and the learned Court below is directed to proceed with the said suit for their early disposal as the suits are already twenty five years old.
