ORDER
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.
1. On 12-10-1996 the petitioner filed a suit as Short Causes Suit No. 5671 of 1996 in the City Civil Court, Bombay against respondent No. 1 for injunction restraining him from disturbing the petitioners’s possession on premises bearing No. 7/C, Ground Floor, Sunbeam Chambers, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. The petitioner claims his tenancy over this premises. While hearing interim application, the learned Judge found that the dispute is really between the landlord and tenant and the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, on 15th October, 1996 the said suit was withdrawn with notice to respondent No. 1. On the same day, the petitioner filed Rent Act Declaration Suit No. 1794 of 1996 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the respondent No. 1 for declaration that he was tenant of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the aforesaid premises and also for the injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit premises without due process of law. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 also filed Suit No. 5852 of 1996 for mandatory injunction to direct the petitioner to remove himself from the suit premises and for other reliefs. Petitioner also took out Notice of Motion No. 140 of 1997 wherein he has contended that Suit No. 5852 of 1996 should be stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure till his Suit No. 1794 of 1996 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay is finally disposed of. By an order dated 7th April, 1997, the said application was dismissed by the City Civil Court as the requirement for invoking section 10 are not satisfied in the present case. In the said order of the City Civil Court Bombay is being sought to be revised here.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anturkar submits that the point that has to be decided in the suit filed by him before the Small Causes
Court as Suit No. 1794 of 1996 and in the Suit No. 5852 of 1996 on the file of City Civil Court filed by respondent No. 1 are one and the same i.e. whether the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent No. 1 and when that common question is to be decided in these suits, though pending before different courts, Suit No. 5852 of 1996 filed by respondent No. 1 has to be stayed taking into account the legislative intention in enacting section 10. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows :
“Stay of suit—No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by (the Central Government) and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.”
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anrurkar tried to contend before me that the Suit No. 1794 of 1996 filed by the petitioner is the earlier suit and Suit No. 5852 of 1996 was a subsequent suit between the same parties. The matter in issue is also directly and substantially the same in subsequent suit. Then by the virtue of former part of the section, subsequent Suit No. 5852 of 1996 shall be stayed. He contended that if the facts of the case satisfy the first part of the section, the later part of the section namely “or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or in any other Court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by (the Central Government) and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court” will have no application. In other words, if it is found that there is previously instituted suit between the same parties and the issues are the same to be directly and substantially same in both the suits, then it is immaterial whether the Court where the subsequent suit is filed has got jurisdiction to grant reliefs claimed or not.
4. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel Mr. Anturkar about the manner in which section has to be read. In order to apply section 10 the Statute requires four points to be satisfied :
1. the issue must be common in both the suits;
2. the previously instituted suit should be in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is filed. If it is in different Court, the Court where earlier suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant reliefs claimed in the subsequent suit;
3. both the suits must be between the same parties;
4. such parties must be litigating in both the suits under the same title;
If so read any of the condition is lacking, section 10 will not have any application. Various High Courts and Supreme Court expresses the very same opinion about the said section.
5. Mr. Anturkar’s contention is that presence of a coma and ‘or’ after the first clause implies that if the former clause of section applies to the facts of
the particular case, one need not look into the other parts of section which deals with concurrent jurisdiction of the courts. According to me, Mr. Anturkar is right in his submission partly. If both the suits are pending in the same Court, then what he said is correct. Former clause excludes all other part of the section. But suppose suits are pending in different courts, other clause will also apply. In order to mark out this different conceptually both coma and ‘or’ used after the former part of the section, we have to read into the former part of the section ‘in the same’ Court also. If so read, the other part of the section clarifies about the different courts. If it is different Court, the earlier Court must have jurisdiction to grant relief sought in the suits subsequently filed in the another Court. Therefore, the reading of the section in the manner in which Mr. Anturkar suggests, cannot be accepted. We have to. comprehend a provision in a statute in keeping in mind the idea to be achieved in enacting the same.
6. The interpretation of section 10 comes in the decision of Nirmal Singh v. Om Prakash, reported in A.I.R. 1965 Jammu & Kashmir 99. In paragraph 6 of the judgment it is observed :
“I am afraid this argument of Mr. Satyapal is on the face of it fallacious and the provisions of section 10 of the Civil P.C. are not at alt applicable to the facts of the present case. Nor can the civil suit pending in the Court be stayed under the inherent powers of the Court under section 151, Civil P.C. A cursory perusal of section 10, Civil P.C. would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before this section can be applied :–
(1) The matter in issue in both the suits must be substantially the same.
(2) The previously instituted suit must be pending in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in a different Court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed.
(3) Both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives.
(4) Such parties must be litigating in both the suits under the same tide.”
7. I fully agree with the interpretation given by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. Mr. Nasrat Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents has brought to my notice various decisions of the different High Court. I do not wish to crowd this judgement with similar decisions of other High Courts i.e. Mohd. Ali Khan v. Shaffi Hasan, , Revenue Divisional Officer v. Pushpam, A.I.R. 1976 Mad. 253, Nathulal v. Mangoo A.I.R. 1976 Raj. 207, and various other decisions. All the High Courts speak on the same line. In the light of the language in section 10 it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anturkar that if any of the above conditions will be sufficient to attract section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is necessary at this juncture to refer to observation made by the Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., . In para 8 of the judgement it is observed :
“The object of the prohibition contained in section 10 is to prevent the courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and also to avoid inconsistent findings on the
matters in issue; The provision is in the nature of a rule of procedure and does not attract the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the later suit nor does it create any substantive right in the matters.”
8. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the Court where the previous suit is pending must have concurrent jurisdiction as that of the Court whether the subsequent suit was pending.
9. Admittedly in this case, earlier suit was by the tenant restraining the respondent landlord from dispossessing him. This is under the provisions of the Rent Act. This is a matter pertaining to the relationship of landlord and tenant and for which City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with it. The reliefs asked cannot be granted by the City Civil Court. Likewise as far as the relief sought in the subsequent suit is concerned only the City Civil Court can have jurisdiction. It cannot be said that both the suits are pending in two different courts having parallel and concurrent jurisdiction.
10. In view of the uniform pronouncement of the different High Courts and Supreme Court, I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anturkar. Thus reliefs sought in the subsequent suit cannot be granted by the Court in which earlier suit is pending, then section 10 will have no application. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, Civil Revision Application is only to be dismissed.
11. In the result, Civil Revision Application is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Rule is discharged accordingly.
Certified copy expedited.
12. Application dismissed.