S.N.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 o