Section 10 CPC applies only when issues in both suits are directly and substantially the same; otherwise, separate proceedings may continue without conflict.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure P/19) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Petition No. 62/2019 titled as Seth Sarnamal Aggarwal Trust & Ors. Vs. Nirmla Wadhwa & Anr. may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. By an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, the Application Dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P/17) under section 10 CPC preferred by the Petitioners may kindly be allowed."

2. The facts, insofar as necessary for determination of the present controversy, are that the petitioners claim to have purchased the property in question through two duly executed agreement to sell, executed by the respondents. The first agreement to sell was dated 24.04.2004 (Annexure P/1) and the second agreement to sell was dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P/8), pertaining to two separate portions of premises commonly known as “Hariyana Bhawan” situated at Plot No. 3 (Flour Mill), Industrial Area, Block, Sri Ganganagar. As per the agreement to sell dated 24.04.2004, the petitioners claim to have paid the total amount of Rs. 21,00,000 in parts, and their possession of the property, which began as tenancy on 14.01.2004, was acknowledged in the agreement itself. With respect to the subsequent agreement dated 22.09.2010, the petitioners claim to have paid the full consideration amount of Rs. 15,00,000/– in cash, upon which possession of the relevant portion was delivered to them, with an understanding interse that the formal sale deed would be executed within eight years. When the respondents, notwithstanding the petitioners’ presence before the Sub-Registrar on 30.04.2019, failed to execute the requisite sale deeds, the petitioners instituted two Civil Suits bearing suit No. 18/2019 and 19/2019 before the Additional District Judge No.02, Sri Ganganagar, seeking specific performance of the aforesaid agreements, wherein interim orders of status quo came to be passed. During pendency of the said suits, the respondents filed the Rent Petition No. 62/2019 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act”) before the Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred as "learned Tribunal"), seeking eviction of the petitioners from the property in question. Upon which, the petitioners filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking stay of the rent proceedings on the ground that the issues involved were directly and substantially in issue in the pending civil suits. However, the learned Tribunal, by order impugned dated 24.03.2022, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 & 277 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 24.03.2022, rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC, is perverse and unsustainable on the premise that two previously instituted civil suits for specific performance concerning the very same property and between the same parties are already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, wherein interim protection has also been granted. It was further urged that despite being aware of the said pendency, the respondents have deliberately filed a subsequent rent petition by suppressing material facts and t