Short Note : 1. The plaintiffs have preferred this revision against the order of the trial Court staying their suit under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages against the non-applicants defendants. Their contention is that the suit house is the self acquired property of one Jageshwar and it was inherited by his son Atmaram. Since it was ancestral property in the hands of Atmaram, his 3 sons also got a share in it from their birth. Atmaram died in the year 1963 and thereafter the suit house has been sold to the plaintiffs by his sons and grand sons by separate sale-deeds each in respect of 1/3rd share in the suit house. After the death of Atmaram, the defendants had attorned their tenancy in favour of the plaintiff's vendors and because of the transfers in favour of the plaintiffs the have acquired all rights of their vendors and the defendants are now their tenants. The defendants in their written statement submitted that Atmaram had also 2 daughters Surajbai and Sejabai who had also share in the suit house and they have filed civil suit No. 3-A/75 claiming partition of the suit house. In that suit all the heirs of Atmaram including his grand-sons, the plaintiffs and defendants have also been made parties. Since the plaintiffs have not become full owners of the suit house they could not terminate tenancy of the defendants nor could they alone file this suit for eviction. After the issues were framed in this suit, the defendants moved an application under section 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. for staying this suit because of the pendency of the title suit between the local heirs of Atmaram. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs saying that the matter in issue in the subsequent suit filed by the 2 daughters of Atmaram and as such there is no question of staying the earlier suit for eviction. The learned trial Judge has allowed the application holding that the question whether the plaintiffs have become full owners of the suit house is dependent on the decision in the subsequent C.S. No. 3-A/75 filed by 2 daughters of Atmaram. He has accordingly stayed this suit under section 151 of the Code of exercising its inherent powers. The learned trial Judge has allowed the application holding that the question whether the plaintiffs have become full owners of the suit house is dependent on the decision in the subsequent C.S. No. 3-A/75 filed by 2 daughters of Atmaram. He has accordingly stayed this suit under section 151 of the Code of exercising its inherent powers. Held : Under section 10 of the Code no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. Three conditions have to be satisfied for invoking this section: (i) that the matter in issue in the second suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the first suit, (ii) that the parties in the second suit are the same or parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title and (iii) that the Court in which the first suit is instituted is competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. Obviously, this section has no application here because the suit stayed is net the subsequent suit but the earlier suit. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit is whether the defendants are tenants of the plaintiffs and their tenancy has been validly terminated and whether the plaintiffs have made out a ground for their eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, while in the subsequent issue is whether the 2 daughters of Atmaram have any share in the property left behind by Atmaram and whether they are entitled to claim partition. The present suit being an eviction suit, the question of title is only incidentally involved only for the purpose of determining whether there is a contract of tenancy between the plaintiffs and the defendants while in the subsequent suit the question of title is directly and substantially involved. The present suit being an eviction suit, the question of title is only incidentally involved only for the purpose of determining whether there is a contract of tenancy between the plaintiffs and the defendants while in the subsequent suit the question of title is directly and substantially involved. A Division Bench of this Court in Lekhraj v. Sardar Sawan Singh ( 1971 JLJ 545 ) has held that "the suit by L for declaration that sale deed of premises of L in favour S did not pass title. Subsequent suit by S for ejectment of L from premises alleging that he had purchased the premises from L and let them out to him on tenancy and that he had committed default in paying rent. No common question of law or fact were involved. Suit of S should not be stayed." In that case title suit was filed first while the eviction held that the question directly and substantially in issue in the title suit is not the same as that involved in the eviction suit The question whether there was a contract of tenancy was directly and substantially in issue in the eviction suit but that was not an issue directly and substantially involved in the title suit. Therefore, the trial Court could not have stayed the suit under section 10 of the Code Regarding invoking of the inherent powers staying the earlier suit, the Supreme Court in Manoharlal v. Seth Hirlal ( AIR 1962 SC 527 ) has held that the provisions of section 10 are clear, definite and mandatory. A Court in which a subsequent suit has been filed is prohibited from proceeding with the trial of that suit in certain specified circumstances. When there is a special provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing with the contingencies of two such suits being instituted recourse to the inherent powers under section 151 is not justified. The provisions of section 10 do not become inapplicable on a Court holding that the previously instituted suit is a vexatious suit or has been instituted in violation of the terms of the contract. Here also no ground has been made out for invoking inherent powers under section 151 of the Code. The provisions of section 10 do not become inapplicable on a Court holding that the previously instituted suit is a vexatious suit or has been instituted in violation of the terms of the contract. Here also no ground has been made out for invoking inherent powers under section 151 of the Code. In the present suit if the plaintiffs fail to prove that they are the landlords of the defendants, their suit would fail and this question is not dependent on the decision in the subsequent suit filed by 2 daughters of Atmaram. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in staying the earlier, suit for eviction filed by the plaintiffs because of the pendency of the suit for partition by the 2 daughters of Atmaram. Revision allowed.