( 1 ) IN this petition filed under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act',)the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-1-1975 passed on IA. No. 1 in HRC No. 129/74 by the II auditional Munsiff, Belgaum. ( 2 ) IA/no. 2 in HRC. No. 129/74 was filed by the respondents, who are admittedly the landlords of the schedule premises. The petitioner is admittedly the tenant of the schedule premises. By IA. No. 1 which the respondents purported to file under S. 10 read with S. 151 of the CPC, the respondents prayed that the enquiry in HRC. No. 129/74 should be stayed till OS. No. 34/74, which admittedly, was previously instituted by the petitioner-tenant, was decided. The learned 11 Additional Munsiff has direccted stay of the enquiry in HRC. No. 129/74. ( 3 ) THE Beigaum Municipality issued a notice to the petitioner-tenant and the respondent-landlords to demolish the schedule premises on the ground that the same had become dilapidated and so was dangerous to tne public. The petitioner-tenant filed OS. No. 34/74 against the respondents-landlords and the Municipality praying for injunction on the ground that the schedule premises was not in a dilapidated condition or in a dangerous condition ag contended by them. The Munsift, on the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, ordered that status quo should be maintained. Thereafter, the petitioner filed HRC. No. 129/74 as against the landlords only under S. 44 of the Act. in HRC. No. 129/74, the petitioner has made out a case that he is a tenant of the schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 and the respondents themselves, being influential people in Belgaum, had made the Municipality to issue a notice which is challenged in os. No. 34/74 and that the respondents themselves tried to demolish the schedule premises but he obstructed them and gave a complaint to the police. While attempting to demolish the building, the respondents have removed the tiles and that has caused heavy leakage. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to effect necessary repairs but the respondents did not care to do so. Hence, he has filed hrc. No. 129/74 praying that the Court by exercising its power under s. 44 of the Act, should direct the respondents to attend to the necessary repairs. Therefore, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to effect necessary repairs but the respondents did not care to do so. Hence, he has filed hrc. No. 129/74 praying that the Court by exercising its power under s. 44 of the Act, should direct the respondents to attend to the necessary repairs. ( 4 ) THE learned IT Addittonal Munsiff, has in the course of his order correctly narrated the principles underlying under S. 10 of the CPC But, ultimately he has held that if enquiry in HRC No. 129/74 is permitted to proceed, there is every likelihood of an order being passed contrary to the order passed by the Munsiff on the interlocutory application in OS. 34/74 tc the effect that status quo should be maintained, and as such it was in the interests of justice, necessary to stay the further enquiry in HRC. No. 129/74. ( 5 ) SHRI C R. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that hrc. No. 129/74 is not a suit and hence S. 10 is not applicable. He nextly contended that even if S. 10 is held to be applicable, the ingredients of S 10 would rot be satisfied in view of the fact that the relief claimed in HRC. No. 129/74 cannot at all the granted in OS No34/74 and that has been laid down by this Court in Digambar Narayan Tagore v. Firm Gadmal Motijo marwadi, (1972) 1 Myslj. 576 . ( 6 ) SHRI C. R. Patil sought support from the order passpd by this court in CRP. No. 1118/73 in disposed of on 13-8-1973 and CRP. Wo. 2413/ 73 (3) disposed of on 7-11-1974. ( 7 ) IN CRP. No. 1118/73, (2) the proceedings that were concerned were os. No. 176/69 and tenancy appeals No. 60/63-64 and 30/64-65. OS. No. 176/69 was a suit for declaration while the two tenancy appeals were concerned with recovery of rents Stay of further trial in OS No 176/69 was sought and the Munsiff rejected the prayer on the ground that S. 10 CPC was not applicable. This Court held that the view taken by the Munsiff was correct. ( 8 ) IN CRP. No. 2413/73 (3), the proceedings, concerned were HRC. No 325/72 and FRC No. 15/69-70. HRC. No. 325/72 was before the Munsiff while FRC. No. 15/69-70 was before the House Controller. This Court held that the view taken by the Munsiff was correct. ( 8 ) IN CRP. No. 2413/73 (3), the proceedings, concerned were HRC. No 325/72 and FRC No. 15/69-70. HRC. No. 325/72 was before the Munsiff while FRC. No. 15/69-70 was before the House Controller. Stay of further proceedings in HRC. No 325/72 was sought and the Munsiff did not grant the stay order. This court held that the Munsiff was right in his view. ( 9 ) IT has to be stated that in both the decisions referred to above, the question whether the HRC proceedings or the FPC proceedings or the tenancy appeals fall within the ambit of S. 10 of the CPC has not been gone into and no reasoning concerning thft aspect is found. ( 10 ) IF the question whether the provisions of S. 10 of the CPC are applicable to the proceedings under the Act before the Mimsiff has to be gone into, Rule 35 of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961 is to be borne in mind. It reads as follows :"in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided for by these Rules, the Court shall as far as possible be guided by the provisions contained in the CPC, 1908. ( 11 ) IN my opinion, it is not necessary to go into this question in this case. I will proceed with the assumption that S. 10 and S. 151 of the CPC, would be applicable to the proceedings under the Act. ( 12 ) THE principles underlying S. 10 of the CPC, may be narrated as follows : i) The matter in issue in the second suit must also be directly and substantially in issue in the prior suit ii) The prior suit must be pending in the same Court or in any court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed and iii) Where the previously instituted suit is pending in any court in India, such court is of competent jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. ( 13 ) THE relief claimed in HRC. No. 129/74 is under S. 44 of the Act, while the relief claimed in OS. No. 34/74 is permanent injunction. The two reliefs are quite different In OS. No. 34/74, the relief claimed by the petitioner under S. 44 of the Act cannot be granted. ( 13 ) THE relief claimed in HRC. No. 129/74 is under S. 44 of the Act, while the relief claimed in OS. No. 34/74 is permanent injunction. The two reliefs are quite different In OS. No. 34/74, the relief claimed by the petitioner under S. 44 of the Act cannot be granted. This view is supported by the decision in Digambar Narayan Tagare v. Firm Gadmal Motiio Marwadi (1 ). It is laid down therein that a suit against the landlord under S. 44 of the Act for a direction to carry out reasonable repairs to the building at his expense within a reasonable time or in the alternative for permission to Pet the repairs carried out and have the cos's of such recovered from the landlord is not maintainable, as an application under S. 44 of the Act only will have to be filed. Therefore, it is plain that the third condition necessary to satisfy the ingredients of S. 10 CPC is absent in the case on hand. That shows that S. 10 cannot be made use of on the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 14 ) NOW it is to be considered whether S. 151 of the CPC can be made use of by the landlords. When the specific provision as available in S. 10 of the CPC cannot be made me of, it follows that some exceptional circumstances as obsrrved in CPF No. 1118/73 and CRP. No 2413/73 should be present to call for the application of the provisions in S. 151 of the CPC. No such exceptional circumstances have been made out by the resnondents-landlords. Hence, the view taken by the learned II Additional Munsiff, is not sustainable and this petition is entitled to succeed. ( 15 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed and the order dated 8-1-1075 passed on IA. No. 1 in HRC. No. 129/74 by the II Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, is set aside. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .