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 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/s. 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 u/s. 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/s. Swaraj Developers and Ors., reported in -.

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 fre