IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.669 of 2009 Md. Salim, son of late Md. Halim, resident of Madhepura Purani Bazar, Ward no.6, ( New Ward No.10), P.S. Madhepura, District Madhepura. …Defendant-Petitioner. Versis 1. Bibi Sabana Khatoon @ Bibi Sabana, wife of late Md. Islam 2. Haidar Ali 3. Tipu Sultan Both minor sons of late Md. Islam and under the guardianship of their grand father Md. Kudua. 4. Md. Kudus, son of late Noor Mohammad, All residents of Ward no. 4/8, Madhepura Municipality, P.S. Madhepura, District Madhepura. ….Opposite Parkties. ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Shashi Nath Jha and Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Opp. Paries: M/s Raghib Ahsan, Nafisuzzoha and Md. Naushaduzzoha, Advocates. ------ 04/ 26.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 31.03.2009, by which the learned Civil Judge-I, Junior Division, Madhepura rejected his application under the provision of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceeding of Eviction Suit No. 40 of 2008 till the disposal of Title Suit No. 179 of 2006. 3. The aforesaid eviction suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for eviction of the defendant-petitioner, claiming him to be their tenant, on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit premises and default in payment of rent by the defendant and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said eviction suit, the sole defendant appeared and 2 filed his written statement. 4. Earlier Title Suit No. 179 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner against the vendor of the opposite parties with respect to the same property for specific performance of contract. The said title suit is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Madhepura with respect to the same property, which is involved in the eviction suit. 5. The plaintiff of the title suit, who was defendant in the eviction suit filed an interlocutory application in the eviction suit for stay of its proceeding till the disposal of the earlier title suit. This interlocutory application has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 31.03.2009, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. The law is well-settled in this regard that the subject matters of the eviction suit and the title suit are different even if the properties involved in the suit are the same and hence on the basis of the pendency of earlier title suit, the proceeding of the subsequently filed eviction suit cannot be stayed as the main issue in the eviction suit is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties of eviction suit on the basis of which the case has to be decided. 7. 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. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )