The court emphasized that the question of devolution of tenancy rights should be decided after framing issues and leading evidence, and allowed the plaintiffs to seek amendment of the plaint to raise this question.

1. - These two revision petitions though arise from the two different suits, but the suits were between the same parties and pertaining to the eviction of tenant from the suit premises. Identical orders have been passed in these two suits on the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code. These revision petitions are being taken up for hearing and are being decided together by this common order. Both these revision petitions are also ordered to be tagged together and that is an another reason for which these matters are to be taken up together for hearing and decision.

2. For the decision of these matters, the facts and grounds of challenge to the orders are being taken from S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 191/2001.

3. The suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, sub-letting and non-user of the tenanted premises has been filed by the plaintiff respondents hereinafter referred as the plaintiffs) against late Shri Jawari Lal. Shri Jawari Lal is the father of the present defendant petitioners.

4. The premises is a shop situated at Holi Dada, Ajmer bearing Municipal No. 7/220.

5. Written statements in the suit was filed by late Jawari Lal.

6. During the pendency of the suit Jawari Lal passed away in 1998. The plaintiff respondents filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code on 19.12.1998 to bring the heirs and legal representatives of Jawari Lal on record in the suit. In his place the petitioners were impleaded as defendants as per the prayer made in that application by the plaintiffs.

7. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application under section 2 (11) read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code with regard to the provisions of Section 3(vii) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, therein it was stated that none of the legal heirs and representatives of late Jawari Lal was doing business with him during his lifetime and till his death and tenancy rights in the tenanted premises do not inherit upon his any of successors as per the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Prayer has been made that the heirs and legal representatives of Late Jawari Lal are not within the ambit of tenant and tenancy rights have not been inherited to them and therefore, their possession of the rented shop is as of a trespasser and they are liable to be evicted.

8. This application was contested by the petitioners. After hearing rival contentions of the parties, learned trial court under its order dated 8.10.1999 had rejected the application of the plaintiffs.

9. It is not in dispute that the order dated 8.10.1999 passed by the trial court on this application of the plaintiffs respondents has not been challenged by them.

10. The plaintiffs moved another application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code on 5.7.2000 praying therein for grant of permission to amend the plaint. By this application they proposed to add para 4-A to the plaint which reads as under : HINDI MATTER 359678A

11. This application was replied by the defendant petitioners and it was contested on the ground that the proposed amendment is false, vague and if it is allowed, then it will prolong the disposal of the civil suit. It was further replied that the present amendment is barred by the principle of res judicata as the same question has earlier been decided by the trial court vide its order dated 8.10.1999. This application came to be allowed by the learned trial under its order dated 29.11.2000, hence these revision petitions.

12. Learned counsel for the defendant petitioners submitted that the court of the court below is barred by the principles of res judicata. It is urged this very question was earlier considered and decided by the learned trial c under its order dated 8.10.1999. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court of the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others v. Smt. Deorajin Dabi another,- AIR 1960 SC 941 , it is contended that in the same proceeding different stages