Sections 10 and 151, Civil P. C. have no application to a case under, the Orissa House Rent Control Act and further the party who himself is a defaulter cannot invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151, civil P. C.

R. K. DAS, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2. They are occupying a house belonging to the plaintiff-opposite party in the town of Berhamjmr from 18-4-57. It was the case of the plaintiff that the rent of the said house was originally fixed at Rs. 70/-whereas the case of the defence was that the rent was fixed at Rs. 50/ (fifty ). We are not however concerned at this stage with that part of the controversy.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed Money Suit No. 51/ 65 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, berhampur, for realisation of arrears of rent covering a period of three years that is, from 15-6-62 to 15-5-65 claiming the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.

( 3 ) IN the written statement the defendants took the plea that the rent payable was section 30a and that it was neither Rs. 70/- nor Rs. 100/- as alleged by the plaintiff.

( 4 ) AFTER filing of the money-suit the defendants-petitioners filed an application on 5-7-65 under Section 5 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act for fixation of a fair rent. The plaintiff also filed an application for eviction under Section 7 of the said act. Both the cases are now pending before the House Rent Controller. On 11-866, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 10 and 151, Civil P. C. , for stay of proceedings in the aforesaid money-suit until disposal of the application under Section 5 by the House Rent Controller. The Learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 13-8-66 rejected this application. It is against this order of rejection the petitioners have filed this revision.

( 5 ) THE question for consideration is whether it is open to the Court to stay the Civil suit in exercise of its powers under Sections 10 and 151, Civil P. C. in a case of this nature. The essential conditions to make out a case for stay of a suit under section 10 Civil P. C. are that there must be two suits in respect of the same subject-matter and for the same relief between the same parties or their representatives and the previously instituted suit is pending. The subsequent suit to be stayed should satisfy the aforesaid conditions. In the present case, the proceedings before the House Rent Controller first of all cannot be taken to be a suit. No doubt, the word 'suit' has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure but it has been explained to mean a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of a plaint, See AIR 1933 PC 63, Hansraj v. Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd.

( 6 ) THE next question is whether the subject-matter of both the cases are the same. In the case before the Rent Controller the relief asked for is one for fixation of a fair rent in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of the House rent Control Act (hereinafter said as 'the act') which I shall examine a little later, whereas in the civil suit the relief asked for is a decree for arrears of rent. As to the application of the provision of Section 151, Civil P. C. to cases of this nature no doubt wide inherent powers have been vested in a Court under Section 151, Civil p. C. but as is well settled, such powers should not be exercised to override the express provisions of the Code. (See AIR 1964 SC 993. Arjun Singh v. Mohindra kumar ).

( 7 ) MR. Panda contended that Sections 10 and 151, Civil P. C. have no application to a case under, the Orissa House Rent Control Act and further the party who himself is a defaulter cannot invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151, civil P. C. He relied upon a decision of the Hyderabad High Court reported in AIR 1953 Hyd 55, Mohd. Ismail v. Sakina Begum. In that case while a suit for arrears of rent was pending before the Civil Court, an application was filed by the tenant for determination of fair rent before the Rent Controller. An application under sections 10 and 151, Civil P. C. was made for stay of the eviction proceedings. The learned Judge held that there is no justification in allowing the petitioner to utilise his own