This is a petition for revision-against the order of the Munsiff, Sadar (Tripura) rejecting the petitioner's application for stay of Suit No. 17 of 1963 under section la, C.P.C., until the matter in Appeal No. 1 of 1964, pending in the Court of District Judge., Tripura is decided. (2) The succinct facts leading up to this. Revision Petition are that one Haripada Ghosh was the owner of the suit properties. During? his life time the defendant was inducted in the suit properties by him as a monthly tenant of a rent of Rs. 100/- p.m. on 15-3-57. After his death his daughter Kalpana Ghosh, his widow Misribala Ghosh and mother became the owner of the suit properties as legal heirs. In their time also the defendant remained their tenant at a rent of Rs. 100/- p.m. When the defendant did not pay rent to them, Misribala Ghosh, widow of Haripada Ghosh instituted the Rent-Suit No. 1 of 1963 against the defendant in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Agartala for arrears of house rent at the rate of Rs. 100/-p.m. from 4th February, I960 to 21st December, 1961. That suit was decreed on contest on 30-11-64. The defendant being aggrieved with, this judgment and decree of the learned Dubordinate Judge preferred an appeal to the Court of District Judge. The appeal was admitt­ed and registered as Rent Appeal No. 1 of 1964. That appeal is still pending in the Court of District Judge Tripura. Thereafter, Misribala Ghosh, widow of Haripada Ghosh sold 2/3rd share of the properties to the plaintiff No. 1 by a register­ed Kabala on 22-12-61 A.D. The defendant even after his purchase remained in occupation of the properties as a monthly tenant as before and he did not pay any rent to the plaintiff. Thereupon, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of arrears of rents for the period from 22-12-61 to January, 1963 from the defendant at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. (3) The defendant traversed the plaintiff's claim and inter alia pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 50/- p.m. and not Rs. 100/- p-m as alleged by the plaintiff, and he did never -agree to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m to Haripada Ghosh for premises. 100/- p.m. (3) The defendant traversed the plaintiff's claim and inter alia pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 50/- p.m. and not Rs. 100/- p-m as alleged by the plaintiff, and he did never -agree to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m to Haripada Ghosh for premises. He along with this written statement filed a petition for the stay of the suit with the contention that Mis­ribala Ghosh from whom the plaintiff derived his title to the suit properties instituted the Rent Suit No. 1 of 1963 in the Court of Sub-Judge, for recovery of rents for the previous period and that suit is still pending in appeal and the matter in issue in the present suit is also directly and substantially in issue in that suit and as such this suit should be stayed under section 10, C. P. C. till the disposal of the ap­peal- The learned Munsiff heard the learned lawyers and rejected the petition. Being ag­grieved with this order of the learned Munsiff, the defendant has come to this Court in revi­sion. (4) Heard the learned Advocates appearing on both sides and perused the record of the case. (5) The main contention advanced on be­half of the petitioner is that the question of recovery of rent is directly and substantially in issue in both the suits and as such the suit pending before the learned Munsiff be stayed under section 10, C.P.C. till the disposal of the appeal pending in the Court of the District Judge. (6) As regards the proposition of law it cannot be disputed. The provisions contained in section 10 are mandatory in character and when the facts of a particular case invoke the operation of that section, the Courts have no other alternative but to give effect to it and stay the suit. I have therefore to determine if the matter in issue in the present suit is direct-y or substantially in issue in Appeal No. 1 of 1964, which must be taken to be the continuation of a previously instituted suit. I have therefore to determine if the matter in issue in the present suit is direct-y or substantially in issue in Appeal No. 1 of 1964, which must be taken to be the continuation of a previously instituted suit. (7) In this case it is an admitted fact the first suit was filed by Misribala Ghosh for rent in respect of the period from 4th February 1960 to 21st December, 1961, and the present suit is in respect of subsequent period i.e. for the period from 22-12-61 to January, 1963., By this it is clear that the present suit is for] the recovery of rent for the subsequent period and hence the matter in issue in both the suit cannot be said to be identical. (8) In support of my view I may refer, to the case Roshan Din v. Mt. Malan Bibi, AIR 1938 Lah 502. In this case Abdul Rashid J. observed that the expression 'matter in issue' in Section 10 of Civil P. C. has reference to the entire subject-matter in controversy be­tween the parties, and is not equivalent to 'any of the questions in issue'. The section does not bar the trial of a suit for rent for a period subsequent to that included in the previously instituted suit which is pending, although the same question may be involved in both the suits. Similarly in the case Velur Munuswami Mudaliar v. Darwaja Raghupathi, AIR 1940 Mad 7 , Abdur Rahman J- held that the ex­pression 'the matter in issue' as used in S. 10 does not mean any matter in issue. The matter in issue in a previously instituted suit refers to entire subject-matter in dispute not to one of the issues however, imported it may be for the decision of the suit. Where the amount claimed as rent in the former suit was for a different period from the amount claimed in the later suit and there was no evidence whe­ther the area of land in both the suits was the same : the matter in issue in both the suits was not the same and therefore "S. 10 did not apply. " (9) In view of the reasons mentioned above, I am fully satisfied that the conclusion to which the learned Munsiff came on this aspect of the case is perfectly sound and calls for no interference at the hands of this Court. " (9) In view of the reasons mentioned above, I am fully satisfied that the conclusion to which the learned Munsiff came on this aspect of the case is perfectly sound and calls for no interference at the hands of this Court. (10) In the result, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 35/-. Petition dismissed.