P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant in RCC No. 19/87 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tenali questioning the order made in IA. No. 1682/91 filed by him under Section 10 C. P. C. for stay of proceedings in the said RCC pending disposal of O. S. No. 124/83 on the file of the Additional subordinate Judge s Court, Tenali filed by him for specific performance of a contract for sale dated 8-8-1985.

( 2 ) THE respondents filed RCC No. 19/87 under Sections 10 (2) (i) (vi), 3 (l) (b) and 3 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the Act ) against the petitioner for eviction on the ground that Kota Kasiviswanadham, Husband of the first respondent, purchased the premises in question from Alapati Mallikharjuna Rao, A. Janakamma, a. Ramachandra Rao and P. Lakshmirajyam and though they wanted the premises for their personal occupation the petitioner did not vacate the same and hence, they were constrained to file the said petition for eviction.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is contesting the said petition. He has also deposited the rents in pursuance of an order passed by the learned Rent Controller under section 11 (4) of the Act and is continuing to deposit. While so, the petitioner has also filed O. S. No. 124/88 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s court, Tenali against the respondents herein, who are the alleged owners (whose names are stated above) and against some others viz. , Sanka Venkateswarlu, A. Venkayya, vemuri Subba Rao and Kommuru Ullaki for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into between himself and the owners and the said suit is pending. The petitioner, now filed an application in i. A. No. 1618 of 1991 in RCC. No. 19/87 for stay of trial of the said RCC pending disposal of the suit in O. S. No. 124/88 alleging that the respondents have no valid title to the schedule property and as the question of title is in dispute in view of the oral contract of sale dated 8-8-1985 in his favour and as he filed the suit for specific performance, the trial of RCC should be stayed. I may observe that this petition does not even contain the grounds for stay, except stating that as the title to the property is in dispute,stay of trial of RCC should be granted, pending disposal of the suit. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the said application relying on a decision reported in M. Subbaramayya vs. Narasimha swamy that the Rent Controller is not a court and the proceeding before him is not suit so as to attract the application of Section 10 C. P. C. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision petition if filed.

( 4 ) SRI. K. Srinivasa Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me relying upon a decision reported in Podugu Jayalakshmi vs. Sahajadi begum (of the learned single Judge) that the provisions of Section 10 C. P. C. have application to the Rent Control proceedings and therefore, the order of the rent Controller is unsustainable.

( 5 ) MR. NARAM Bhaskar Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no exception can be taken to the view taken by the learned Rent Controller in view of the decision reported in Amrutlal vs. Principal Rent Controller. So in view of the rival contentions the question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether Section 10 C. P. C. is applicable for a proceeding pending before the Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act.

( 6 ) SECTION 10 C. P. C. may be usefully extracted here:-"section 10:- stay of suit:-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 parties 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 jurisdication to grant the relief claimed, or in an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document