The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should consider the stages and comprehensiveness of the suits in deciding whether to stay the trial of a subsequent suit under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that the further progress of their subsequent suit has been arrested on the ground that a prior suit was instituted by the opposite party in respect of the same premises. There is no doubt that the opposite party's suit, T.S. No. 1238 of 2011 was instituted prior to the petitioners' suit, T.S. No. 1881 of 2011.

2. The substance of the petitioning plaintiffs' claim in the plaint is that they have purchased the suit property from erstwhile owners Achinta Das and Ashim Nath Das and that the original defendants and, upon the death of one of them, the surviving defendant has no right in respect of the property in question. The claim is founded on the fact that the father of the opposite party, Paramesh, was the original tenant who died in 1986, then survived by widow Sandhyarani and the opposite party daughter.

3. By virtue of the definition of a tenant in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the heirs of the original tenant who ordinarily resided with the original tenant at the time of his death had to be regarded as tenants and, as such, till the Act of 1956 remained in operation till or about July, 2001, the original defendants may have had a right to continue in occupation of the suit premises. Upon section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 coming into fact in or about July, 2001, the status of the heirs of the original tenant as tenants continued for a period of five years from the date of death of the original tenant or five years from the date of the 1997 Act coming into operation, whichever was later.

4. Accordingly, since Paramesh had died in 1986, by virtue of section 2(g) of the said Act of 1997 the original defendants could have been regarded as lawful tenants in respect of the suit premises for a period of five years after the Act of 1997 came into effect. After July, 2006, the heirs of the original tenant, the original defendants in the present suit, had to be regarded as persons with no authority to remain in occupation at the suit premises. This, in substance, is the claim of the petitioning plaintiffs in their suit.

5. The claim of the opposite party in her suit, which was instituted with her mother as a co-plaintiff, was that the plaintiffs therein were tenants in respect of the suit premises by virtue of such plaintiffs being heirs of the original tenant. The plaint pertaining to the earlier suit filed by the opposite party and her mother impleaded the original owners, Achinta Das and Ashim Nath Das, and also claimed that the petitioners herein had no right, title and interest in respect of the suit premises and ought to vacate a portion of the suit premises in the occupation of the present petitioners. The gamut of the earlier suit was larger than the scope of the subsequent suit.

6. Section 10 of the Code issues a command to a Court to not proceed with the trial of a subsequent suit if the matters in issue in such subsequent suit are directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit. That would imply that if all the matters which are in issue in a subsequent suit are also directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit, the trial of the subsequent suit would have to be stayed. Section 10, on the face of it, does not make any room for any delay in the application under such provision being filed; there is a simple command that the trial of the subsequent suit will be stayed.

7. It is possible that all the matters in issue in the two suits do not overlap. If all the matters in issue in the earlier suit do not cover the matters directly and substantially in issue in the later suit, the trial of the later suit may not be stayed under section 10 of the Code. It is also possible that if the more comprehensive suit is the later suit and the matters in issue therein are also directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit, the inherent power of the Court may be invoked under section 151 of the Code for arre