IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1850 of 2009 ---- Md. Shahabuddin son of Mustaque Ahmad, Resident of Siwan Kasba, Siwan, Mohalla-Kaghzi, P.O. and P.S.Siwan City, District-Siwan. --Defendant no.1-petitioner. Versus 1. Ainullah khan, son of Md. Yunus Khan Resident of Siwan Kasba Siwan, Mohalla-Naya Bazar Hospital Road, District-Siwan. --Plaintiff no.1 -0pposite party 1st Set. 2. Imtiyaz Ahmad, son of Mustaque Ahmad 3. Bibi Quarisha @ Mazda Khatoon wife of Mustaque Ahmad, Residents of Siwan Kasba Siwan Mohalla Kaghzi, P.O. & P.S. Siwan City Town, District-Siwan. --Defendants-Opposite parties 2nd Set. 4. Sahida Umar wife of Marazuddin Ahmad, Resident of Siwan Kasba, Siwan, Mohalla- Kaghzi, P.O. & P.S.Siwan, District-Siwan. --Plaintiff-opposite party 3rd Set. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra with Mr. Bal Govind Sharma and Mr. Awinash Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ----- 05. 10.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 14.10.2009 by which the learned Munsif-I, Siwan rejected the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceeding of Eviction Suit No.31 of 1990 till the disposal of Title Suit No.306 of 1990 which was filed by the defendant-petitioner for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid Title Suit No.306 of 1990 was filed a few months earlier by the defendant-petitioner and Eviction Suit No.31 of 1990 was filed a few months later by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant on the grounds of default in payment of rent by the said defendant and personal necessity of the original plaintiff. 4. It is stated that the defendants of the title suit, namely the plaintiff of the eviction suit appeared in the title suit and filed his written statement, whereafter issues were framed and when the petitioner was to produce evidence, the said suit was dismissed for default and the petitioner had to file Miscellaneous Case No.11 of 2009 for restoration of his title suit. The said Miscellaneous Case no.11 of 2009 is pending before the learned Munsif-I, Siwan. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below is unnecessarily delaying the disposal of the miscellaneous case and expediting the proceeding of the eviction suit, although eviction suit was filed several months after the filing of the title suit and hence the law required that the proceeding of the subsequently filed suit be stayed till the disposal of the earlier filed suit as the parties and the properties in both the cases were the same. 6. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court below, it is quite apparent that the title suit was filed by the petitioner earlier and the eviction suit was filed by opposite party no.1 a few months later. However, nature of the reliefs sought in both the cases are completely different as in a title suit the question of title has to be gone into fully, whereas in the eviction suit the question of title has to be gone into only incidentally and the main issue to be decided in an eviction suit was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and only thereafter the other issues of default and personal requirement have to be considered. 7. Since in the eviction suit the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is merely to be decided and the landlord can be a person who is not the owner of the suit premises as per the definition of “Landlord” under Section 2(f) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, hence there was no occasion for the learned court below to stay the proceeding of the eviction suit which is at the advance stage of disposal awaiting the result of the title suit in which even the evidence has not been started by the petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed and the learned court below is directed to decide the eviction suit in accordance with law without any further delay. 9. It is stated that evidence as well as arguments of both the sides in the eviction suit in the learned court below has been closed and the eviction suit has been fixed for final orders. In the said circumstances, the defendant-petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the objections which he could not raise in the learned court below during the pendency of the title suit and also to file an application for additional evidence in an appeal/revision, if filed by any of the parties, which would be decided on their own merits. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)