JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the 1st. Munsif of Cuttack in Title Suit no 89 of 1955, staying the said suit till the disposal of the House Rent Control Act case No. 27 of 1954. 2. The material facts leading up to the present application are shortly these: On June SO, 1954, the tenants being Defendants-opposite parties in the present application filed a case before House Rent Controller, being House Rent Control Act case No. 27 of 1954, for fixation of fair rent. While the said case was pending, the House Rent Control Act, then in force, expired on December 31, 1944. Within a few months thereafter, on May 9, 1955, the landlords, who are the Petitioners in the present application, filed a suit against the tenants (Defendants-opposite parties) for ejectment, arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 50/-per month for the period from July 29, 1954 to April 22, 1955 according to Hindi Sambat year and also for damage's for use and occupation. In the suit, the tenant-Defendants in due course filed their written statement admitting the tenancy and the rent but they took the point that the reasonable rent could not be more than Rs. 30/- per month. In course of the pendency of the same ejectment suit) the tenant-Defendants on July 27, 1957 made an application for stay of the suit Uti the disposal of the House Rent Control Act case No. 27 of 1954. A month thereafter, on August 29, 1957 the landlord Plaintiffs (who are the Petitioners in the present application) made an application for amendment of the plaint, abandoning a part of their claim for rent. The said two applications were heard together by the learned Munsif and on September 16, 1957 the landlord Plaintiffs' application for amendment was rejected and the tenant- Defendants' application for stay of the ejectment suit until the disposal of the House Rent Control Act case No. 27 of 1954 was allowed. It was against this last order of the learned Munsif that the present application has been made for revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. It was against this last order of the learned Munsif that the present application has been made for revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In course of bearing of this application e learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued at great length that the landlord-Plaintiffs' application for amendment, abandoning a part of their claim for rent, was in fact an application under Order 28, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, and his contention was that the Court had no option to refuse such amendment (or withdrawal of part of the claim. In support of his contention, he referred to several decisions of different High Courts. But it will not be necessary for me to deal with these cases, because in course of the hearing of this application, the learned Counsel for the tenant-Defendants being opposite parties in the present application, conceded that the landlord-Plaintiffs had, under Order 28, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, right to abandon a part of their claim. I, therefore, need not go into that aspect of the question. 4. The question, however, remains whether on the facts of this case the stay of the suit was rightly ordered by the learned Munsif. It appears t, me from the pleadings as also from the records and proceedings, that the real question in controversy between the parties In this suit is whether the tenant-Defendants are habitual defaulters of rent and if they are liable to be ejected For determination of this question, it will be necessary to ascertain as to what would be the fair rent payable by the tenants to the landlords. It is for fixation of such fair r t that the tenants filed an application to the House Rent Controller under the Orissa House Rent Control, Act, 1950 (Act XI o( 1951). The learned Counsel for the tenants (Defendants-opposite parties) drew my attention to Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. His point was that until the House Rent Controller fixes the fair rent payable by his clients it cannot be decided in the suit for ejectment whether his clients are defaulters or not. 5. The learned Counsel for the landlords (Plaintiffs-Petitioners), however, contended that inasmuch as the land-lords had reduced the rent from Rs. His point was that until the House Rent Controller fixes the fair rent payable by his clients it cannot be decided in the suit for ejectment whether his clients are defaulters or not. 5. The learned Counsel for the landlords (Plaintiffs-Petitioners), however, contended that inasmuch as the land-lords had reduced the rent from Rs. 50/-to Ra.30/-per month and ready to accept the position on that basis of rent, it would be useless to wait for the decision in the House Rent Control Act case for fixation of fair rent. There is a good deal of force In this contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs-landlords. It is quite possible that the Controller would also find that the fair rent would be Rs. 30/- per month. Even so, while the tenants have already filed a case to the Controller for fixation of rent, it will not be proper to assume any rent to be fair rent and to try the ejectment suit. It was on this basis that the learned Munsif decided the case and stayed the ejectment suit until the disposal of the House Rent Control Act case. In his judgment the learned Munsif referred to a decision of this Court State of Orissa v. Mst. Kamala Deb 1.18 C.L.T. 359, which also was cited before me by the learned Counsel for the tenant-Defendants (opposite parties) in course of the hearing of this application. In that case also the Court took the view that stipulated rent cannot prevail over any fair rent that may be fixed by the House Rent Controller and that the civil suit should, therefore, be stayed till the disposal of the proceedings for fixation of fair rent before the House Rent Controller. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not see how I can interfere with the finding of the learned Munsif. In fact, I think he rightly stayed the ejectment suit until the disposal of the House Rent Control Act case. The result, therefore, is that I maintain the order of the learned Munsif and dismiss this revision with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 32/-, Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed