Short Note : The applicant (plaintiff) filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the non-applicant on or about September 13, 1976 on the ground that the non-applicant is a tenant of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. The non-applicant executed a rent-note in favour of the applicant. The non-applicant filed a written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and contending that the sale-deed executed by him was, in fact, a mortgage of the property. The non-applicant subsequently instituted civil suit No.100-A of 1976 in the Court of First Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, for a declaration that the sale-deed is not a sale but a mortgage. In this suit, he also prayed for reconveyance. According to the applicant, the scope of both the suits are different and matters are not directly and substantially in issue in both the cases. Therefore the order dated April 5, 1978 staying the proceeding under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure of civil suit No. 42-A of 1976 is wrong. Held; I have no dispute with the proposition that the Court has inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay proceedings if the interest of justice so requires. But, our case is covered by the rulings cited by the applicant's advocate, Shri Fakruddin. Civil suit No. 42-A of 1976 is for ejectment and arrears of rent and this suit has been instituted by the applicant-plaintiff. Civil suit No.100-A of 1976 has been instituted by the non-applicant claiming reconveyance of the property. I have gone through copies of the plaint and the written statement supplied by the advocates on either side. It is an admitted position that the sale-deed was executed in favour of the applicant Kalyansingh so also a rent-note. A custom has been pleaded by the non-applicant that in similar situation in a transaction of loan a deed of reconveyance is executed. It is further alleged that the applicant did not perform his part of the contract for reconveyance of the property. It is apparent that the scope of both the suits are different and the matter could not be held to be substantially and materially in issue in both the suits. The material issue in the earlier suit would be whether there was a contract of tenancy between the parties. It is apparent that the scope of both the suits are different and the matter could not be held to be substantially and materially in issue in both the suits. The material issue in the earlier suit would be whether there was a contract of tenancy between the parties. In the other suit, the material issue would be to the existence of contract of reconveyance and its enforceability. In view of these facts, the lower Court wrongly ordered the stay of civil suit No.42-A of 1976 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, the Lower Court acted with material irregularity in not considering the question involved in a correct perspective. 1971 JLJ 545 and 1976 JLJ 140 relied on. 1962 MPLJ S.N. 49, 1961 MPLJ S.N. 266 and 1963 JLJ 605 referred to. Revision allowed.