Short Note : The plaintiff-non-applicants filed the present suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the rent of the premises was Rs.25 per month. The defendant denied this. The defendant also submitted that he has submitted an application before the Kent Controlling Authority for fixation of standard rent which was pending. After the issues were framed, the defendant submitted an application under sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the suit should be stayed until final decision of the Rent Controlling Authority because according to the defendant the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover rent more than the standard rent. The trial Court has rejected the application of the defendant. The defendant has challenged this order in this revision. Held : Shri M.R. Rudra, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that under section 5 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 no tenant shall, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be liable to pay his landlord for the occupation of any accommodation any amount in excess of the standard rent of the accommodation. He, therefore, contends that if the trial Court proceeds with the trial of the suit and passes a decree on the basis of the agreed rent which is in excess of the standard rent and thereafter the standard rent is determined the defendant would be required to pay rent in excess of the standard rent which is prohibited by law. He, therefore submits that the trial of the suit should be stayed pending disposal of the application of the defendant before the Rent Controlling Authority. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Kanchedilal v. Kasturibai, 1976 MPWN 158. It has been held in that case that section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to such a case. However, considering the special circumstances of that case this Court under the inherent powers directed the stay of the suit pending before the Civil Court until decision of the Rent Controlling Authority because in that suit possession has already been taken over by the plaintiff from the defendant and the only dispute that survived was in regard to arrears of rent. In the present suit the plaintiff has claimed ejectment of the tenant mainly on the ground of his personal requirement of the suit premises. In the present suit the plaintiff has claimed ejectment of the tenant mainly on the ground of his personal requirement of the suit premises. He had also alleged default in payment of rent under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the part of the tenant; but it has been stated at the bar that the arrears of rent as claimed by the plaintiff has been deposited by the tenant in the Court. In view of this, if section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply, it is not a fit case in which the inherent powers of the Court should be exercised and the suit for ejectment pending before the trial Court should be stayed until the decision of the Rent Controlling Authority on the application of the defendant for fixation of standard rent. If eventually the standard rent determined by the Rent Controlling Authority is less than the agreed rent the defendant would be free to take recourse to such remedy for refund of the excess rent recovered from him by the plaintiff as is available in law. Revision dismissed.