1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7170/2007 MADAN MOHAN CHADDA V. THE RENT TRIBUNAL & ANR. DATE OF ORDER ::: 08/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for Petitioner (s). Mr. J.K.Bhaiya, for Respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.03.2007, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Gangangar, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a suit for eviction on the ground of default was filed by the non- petitioner-landlord, in the year, 2001, stating that from the month of May, 1998 till filing of the suit, petitioner defaulted in making payment of rent. During the pendency of the said suit, when the petitioner was paying the rent so determined, the non-petitioner moved an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') for determination of rent. A suit application was also filed for 2 eviction under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2001. The suit for eviction was filed again on the ground of default in making payment of rent from the month of December, 2005 till April, 2006. According to the petitioner, a fresh suit for eviction should not be allowed to proceed, till the earlier suit filed by the non-petitioner on the same ground is decided. Precisely, on that ground, the application under Section 10 of the CPC was filed, but it was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 12.03.2007 and, therefore, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that issues involved in the two matters are required to be seen from the facts involved therein. It is contended that the first suit in which the period of default is from the month of May, 1998 to 2001, whereas in the second suit of eviction, period of default of rent is from December, 2005 till April, 2006. Thus, the issue required to be decided by the courts below taking note of the aforesaid facts and, inasmuch as, the period of default involved in the two suit is not over- lapping in regard to default, therefore, the prayer to stay the second suit made by the petitioner has rightly been 3 turned down by the Tribunal. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. The Court below has taken into consideration that issue, in substance, in two suits are different, inasmuch as, the period of default for payment of arrears of rent is different, thus the application under Section 10 of the CPC cannot be maintained. For ready reference, Section 10, CPC, is reproduced hereunder :- “Section 10. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parities under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or any Court beyond the limits of India established or 4 continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation – The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action” Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that it is not only when the matter between the two parties is pending but issue in previous suit is directly or substantially same that the provisions of Section 10 of C. P.C. Can be invoked. In the present matter, issue involved in the first suit, is regarding default of rent from May, 1998 to 2001 whereas in the second suit, period of default is from the month of December, 2005 till April, 2006, thus substance of the issue in two matters is different hence the provisions of Section 10 cannot be applied. So far as the provision of Section 32 (3) of the Act of 2001 is concerned, it applies only in regard to the continuance of the old suit after coming into force of the Act of 2001. Thus, Section 32 of the Act of 2001 does not deal with the issue raised in the 5 present writ petition. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order impugned dated 12.03.2007. Hence, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd