Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri K.G. Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The order dated 16.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, court No. 7, Bareilly rejecting the application under Section 10, C.P.C. is impugned in the present revision. The revisionist is tenant and he instituted a suit for injunction vide suit No. 327 of 2001, Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Ashok Kumar Gupta and another. Subsequently, Ashok Kumar Gupta instituted S.C.C. suit No. 21 of 2001, Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta for a decree of ejectment against the defendant from twelve rooms of first floor situated at B.D.A. Market, Ashoka Complex, Pilibhit Road, Bareilly. S.C.C. suit was for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. An application under Section 10, C.P.C. was filed by the revisionist/tenant bringing to the notice of the court that since another suit No. 327 of 2001 has been instituted by the revisionist, the proceeding in the subsequent suit pending before the Judge Small Causes Court should be stayed. This application has been rejected by means of the impugned order. Submission on behalf of the revisionist is that since both the suits relate to determination of the rate of rent, therefore, the question to be decided are substantially same and the proceeding in the subsequent suit i.e. S.C.C. suit No. 21 of 2001 is liable to be stayed. It is further submitted that impugned order rejecting the application under Section 10, C.P.C. calls for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C. Copy of the plaint of suit No. 327 of 2001 is Annexed as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit and of the S.C.C. suit No. 21 of 2001 is Annexed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application.

3. I have perused the two plaints. Relief claimed in suit No. 327 of 2001 is one of injunction. In paragraph 11 (a) of the said plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree against the defendant, his relatives and agents from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff and also the property in tenancy of the plaintiff may not be damaged and he may not be evicted otherwise than in due process of law. Counsel for the revisionist has tried to place paragraph 4 of the plaint, where it was averred that the landlord is insisting for enhancement of the rent to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month. The suit filed by the landlord/respondent, is for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, the relief claimed is altogether different. A decree for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand) as arrears of rent, mesne profits for the period commencing from 1.3.2000 to 31.10.2001 at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month and future mesne profits along with compensation for use and occupation at the same rate. It is thus, evident that the relief claimed in the suit pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bareilly is one of injunction. Merely because the rate of rent to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) has been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It cannot be said that the relief in both the suits is in respect of rate of rent. Cause of action in the two suits are different. The jurisdiction vis-a-vis reliefs claimed in the two suits are different and the questions to be decided are also altogether separate. Sri K.G. Srivastava, Advocate, appearing for the revisionist has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in P.V. Shelly v. B.S. Giridhar, A.l.R. 1982 SC 83. In the said case, facts are altogether different. The respondent/landlord instituted a subsequent suit for fixation of fair rent and moved an application for an interim order and the prior suit was for eviction because tenancy was determined and it was claimed that the tenant is not entitled to protection of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. I have perused the judgment and it is absolutely clear that in both the suits, it was for fixation of fair