S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to suits for recovery of rent for different periods.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 9-2-1978 where by the learned trial court held that S. 1 of the Code is not applicable to the fact of the case but in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the trial court, however, stayed the present suit on the condition that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 should deposit in court for the period in dispute part of the amount claimed in the present suit @ Rs. 371. 00. per month and should furnish sure bond for the balance amount claimed the suit.

( 2 ) THE present revision petition has been filed on behalf of defendants 1, 2 and 4 and it is contended that on the facts of the case S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was applicable, and, therefore, the trial court should have stayed the suit and had no jurisdiction to impose any conditions while staying the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs had filed the present suit out of which the present revision arises for the recovery of Rs. 34,200. 00 as arrears of mesne profits for the period 1-4-1974 to 31-3-1977. The mesne profits were claimed @ Rs. 950. 00 per month against the defendants.

( 4 ) THE allegations made in the plaint were that Radhey Shyam, deceased father of defendants 1 to 5, was the tenant under Manohar Lal, plaintiff No. 1, in respect of the property in dispute. The contractual tenancy of Radhey Shyam was duly terminated during his life time by serving upon him a notice of ejectment and after the expiry of the period of the notice Radhey Shyam was a statutory tenant of the premises and statutory tenancy came to an end on his death on 6-11-1972. The defendants 1 to 5 are the heirs and legal representatives of Radhey Shyam and they did not acquire any right or interest in the property on his death and their possession was that of trespassers.

( 5 ) THE defendants including the petitioners contested the suit and filed an application under S. 10 and S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, for stay of the proceedings of the suit alleging that there was a previously instituted suit for possession and for recovery of mesne profits at the said rate of Rs. 950. 00 per month for the period 6-11-1972 to 5-2-1973 pending in respect of the same property as in the present suit in the court of Shri P. R. Thakur, Sub Judge, Delhi. That suit was filed on 26-2-1973. It had further been alleged that there was yet another suit being Suit No. 156 of 1973 filed by Manohar Lal, plaintiff, for recovery of Rs. 12,251. 25 as arrears of rent for the period ending 31-1 0-1972 against the present defendants and the said suit in the terms of the order of this court passed on 23-3-1977 in Civil Writ No. 64 of 1977 Vijay Kumar v. Manohar Lal had been stayed and would remain stayed subject to the final decision of the suit for possession and for the recovery of mesne profits by the court concerned. The suit for the recovery of rent was filed at the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 371. 25 while the suit for recovery of mesne profits had been filed @ Rs. 950. 00 per month. It had been alleged that in the suit for possession and for recovery of mesne profits, these defendants had filed their written statement pleading, inter alia, that Radhey Shyam, deceased, was never the tenant in his individual capacity. It was Hindu Undivided Family Firm known as "the Steel Slate Manufacturing Co. " of which Radhey Shyam was only the Karta and the Manager and the firm throughout and still continued to be the tenant and after the death of Radhey Shyam his eldest son Vijay Kumar, defendant No. 1, (petitioner No. 1 herein) being the eldest male member had become Karta and Manager of the said firm and that the tenancy of the tenant firm was never determined by any notice as required by law and that the said firm was the tenant in the premises in suit for all intents and purposes. The other defendants were occupying the premises in dispute as sub-tenant of the aforesai