The main legal point established is that the provisions of Section 10 CPC cannot be invoked in Rent Control Proceedings due to the self-contained nature of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960 and the limited scope of enquiry in Rent Control Proceedings.

This revision is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sirkali, dated 3.9.2003, made in I.A.No.11/2003 in R.C.O.P.No.4/2002 dismissing the application filed under section 151 CPC declining to stay the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.4/2002, till the disposal of O.S.No.49/2001, Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The Respondents/Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

The relevant facts are :-

2. R.C.O.P.No.4/2002 :-

Petition mentioned House Property is situate at D.No.21, South Car Street, Vaitheeswaran Koil, Sirkazhi. The Revision Petitioners have become tenants under the Respondents. Originally, the monthly rent payable was Rs.300/- which was later increased to Rs.400/-. The Respondents have not regularly paid the rent. When notice was issued seeking for payment of rent, the Respondents have set forth a false claim. Hence the Rent Control petition was filed for eviction, under section 10(2)(1) & &(7) and Section 14(1)(b) on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction. For convenience, parties are referred to in their rank in RCOP No.4/2002.

3. Denying that they are tenants under the Petitioner/ landlady and denying the tenancy, the Respondents have filed the counter statement. The Respondents have claimed that Petitioner/Land Lady had executed an Agreement of Sale on 15.12.1999. For the enforcement of that contract, the Respondents have filed O.S.No.49/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai for specific performance of contract. Since the Respondents are in possession of the petition mentioned premises pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, the Petitioner/landlady cannot seek to evict the Respondents by filing Rent Control Application.

4. O.S.No.49/2001 :-

The Respondents 2 and 3 have filed O.S.No.49/2001 for Specific Performance. According to them, the Petitioner /landlady has entered into an agreement of sale with the Respondents, agreeing to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- and she had executed the Sale Agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. Further case of the Respondents is that the Respondents have paid Rs.50,000/- + Rs.75,000/- and the balance is only Rs.2,00,000/-. In spite of several request, the Petitioner/ landlady has not executed the Sale Deed. Hence the suit has been filed for specific performance directing the landlady to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Respondents.

5. The Petitioner/landlady has opposed the suit contending that the Agreement of Sale, dated 15.12.1999 is a forged one and that the suit being based on the forged document, Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. According to the landlady, the Revision Petitioners and their mother came to the suit property as Tenants and they have been paying rent. Since the tenants have committed default in paying the rent, the Rent Control proceedings has been initiated for eviction.

6. I.A.No.11/2003 – Under Section 151 CPC :-

This application has been filed to stay the Rent Control proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.4/2002 for a period of six months. It has been stated that O.S.No.49/2001 has been filed by the Respondents 2 and 3 for specific performance of contract regarding the suit property. It is averred that since the parties and the subject matter in issue are one and the same, the decision in O.S.No.49/2001 would have bearing upon the rent control proceedings and hence prayed to stay the rent control proceedings.

7. Resisting the application, the Petitioner/Landlady has filed the counter statement contending that the suit O.S.No.49/2001 is not a bar to proceed with the RCOP. The issue in O.S.No.49/2001 is an entirely different issue and hence Section 10 CPC is not applicable.

8. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, the Rent Controller/learned District Munsif, Sirkazhi has dismissed the application. In the application, stay has been sought for only for a period of six months. The impugned order was passed on 3.9.2003. Pointing out that six months time prayed