JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - The Plaintiff have filed this application in revision challenging the correctness of the order of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada, allowing an application of the Defendant's for staying the further proceedings in Money Suit No. 11 of 1984 u/s 151 of the Code of' Civil Procedure. 2. The Plaintiffs have instituted the money suit for realisation of arrears of house rent. Before that, they had also filed an application for eviction of the Defendants from the disputed premise~ before the House' Rent Controller, which was registered as H. R. C. Case No. 4 of 1982. The Defendants had contested the said proceeding, inter alia, that the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Controller passed an order for eviction against which the Defendants had preferred an appeal which was pending before the appellate authority at the relevant time. When the money suit was filed for recovery of arrears of house rent for the same set of premises, the Defendants filed an application for staying the further proceedings of the suit on the ground inter alia that the question of relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties was already sub judice in the H. R. C. proceeding which would have a bearing on the money suit. The trial court passed the impugned order staying the further proceedings in the money suit till the disposal of the H. R. C. appeal. When this revision application was listed for hearing before G. B. Patnaik, J., he, by order dated 21.4-1981, referred the case to a Division Bench for decision under the impression that there was conflict between his own judgment in Bijoy Kumar Agrawalla and Anr. v. Narayan Sahu C. R. No. 135 of 1984 disposed of on 12-2-1986 and, a decision of another learned Judge of this Court in Manika Dei and Ors. v. Dhadia Madgul and Ors. 61 (l986) C.L.T. 436, in which several other decisions were referred; and accordingly the matter was placed before us. 3. Before I proceed to consider the so-called 'conflict' I will notice the relevant provisions of the Orissa House Rent Control Act and the CPC (for short 'the Code'). 4. v. Dhadia Madgul and Ors. 61 (l986) C.L.T. 436, in which several other decisions were referred; and accordingly the matter was placed before us. 3. Before I proceed to consider the so-called 'conflict' I will notice the relevant provisions of the Orissa House Rent Control Act and the CPC (for short 'the Code'). 4. The Orissa, House Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') is a special Act enacted by the State legislature to provide fat the control of house-rent in the State of Orissa and deals with the problems of rent of the buildings and eviction of tenants therefrom by the landlords. A jurisdiction has been countered on the 'Controller' to entertain applications by tenants and landlords and all orders passed by the Controllers shall, subject to the decision, if any, made in an appeal be final and unchallengeable in any court of law. It is, therefore, obvious that tbe Controller is the only i competent authority who has been entrusted with the power to decide these matters by creating a special forum. 5. Section 10 of the Code makes a provision for staying the trial of a suit "in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issuing a previously instituted suit between the same parties" or under whom they or any of them are litigating under the same title. But strictly speaking., the provision applies only to suits pending in a 'court' within the meaning of the Code the policy of the law obviously being to confine the Plaintiff to only one litigation so that contradictory verdicts in respect of the same relief may not be given by two or, more courts. Although the rule of res judicata does not form part of this section, obviously it is based upon the principle of res judicata. But in view of the scheme of Section 10 difficulty was being felt in applying the principle when matters were not pending in the courts contemplated by Section 10 and the possibility of contradictory verdicts was there. A plethora of decisions on this subject have been rendered by different High Courts and also by the Supreme Court and the principles of Section 10 were extended by applying Section 151 of the Code. In order to obviate this conflict of decisions (if I may say so), by the CPC (Amendment) Act. A plethora of decisions on this subject have been rendered by different High Courts and also by the Supreme Court and the principles of Section 10 were extended by applying Section 151 of the Code. In order to obviate this conflict of decisions (if I may say so), by the CPC (Amendment) Act. 1976 two new Explanations, namely, VII and VIII, have been inserted in Section 11 of the Code to make the principle of res judicata more comprehensive and wide.' Explanation VIII, which is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows: Explanation VIII - An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such, subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised thus ensuring the applicability of the principle of res judicata also to cases which were triable by Courts of limited jurisdiction so as to make the decisions of .the courts of limited jurisdiction operate as rejudicata in subsequent suits although the Court of limited jurisdiction may not be competent to try such subsequent suits or the suit in which such question is subsequently raised. 6. Ordinarily, it is the Civil Court which is to determine the nature of jural relationship between the litigating parties. But the Orissa Act which has been enacted for the control of rent and evection of tenants contemplates the pre-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant 'between the parties. But where the tenant denies the Plaintiff to be his land lord, the Controller has to decide this question and if he decides that there is no such relationship, the proceeding has to be terminated without proceeding to decide the main issue. In other words, the" special Tribunal of limited jurisdiction created under a special statute is entitled to decide facts which are necessary to give jurisdiction to itself (i) to enable it to proceed under the statute and, (ii) to adjudicate in exercise of that jurisdiction specially entrusted to it under the statute. 7. In the unreported decision of G. B. Patnaik, J. Bijay Kumar Agrawalla and Anr. 7. In the unreported decision of G. B. Patnaik, J. Bijay Kumar Agrawalla and Anr. v. Narayan Sahu C. R. No. 135 of 1984, the question that was decided by the learned Judge was as to whether the Civil Court was right in staying the money suit u/s 10 of the Code on the ground that a house rent control proceeding was pending before the Controller which-had been filed earlier. No reference was made either to Section 151 of the Code or to, the newly inserted Explanation VIII to Section 11 thereof. The learned Judge therefore, took the view that Section 10 as such having no application, the order of stay was without jurisdiction. 8. In the later single Judge decision Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh Vs. State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) a similar order of stay of the suit was passed by this Court in a converse case on reference to Explanation VIII, although purporting to be acting, only order Section 10 of the Code. It is perhaps on this account. Patnaik. J. thought that there was a conflict in the decisions of this Court. 9. The general principle of res judicata had been applied even with reference to a decision in an earlier writ petition involving the name question, by the Supreme Court in Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujurat AIR 1965 S.C. 1153 . 10. I find that three High Courts namely. Calcutta, Kerala, and Bombay in Promode Ranjan Banerjee Vs. Nirapada Mondal Puthen Veettil Nolliyodan Devoki Amma and Others Vs. Puthen Veettil Nolliyodan Kunhi Raman Nair and Others, and Prabhakar Atmaram Kale Vs. Bharat and Another respectively have applied the principle of res judicata by virtue of the amendment of Section 11 of the Code and have held that the findings of the Rent Controller would operate in subsequent suits as res judicata notwithstanding that the Rent Controller is not competent to try the subsequent suits. In the subsequent judgment of this Court in Manika Dei's case, the learned Judge has .also noticed all these decisions .along with some others. I, therefore, do not find any conflict in the two decisions of this Court. All that can be said is that in the unreported decision before. G. B. Patnaik. J. the matter was not argued properly inasmuch as the relevant provisions of law were not placed. I, therefore, do not find any conflict in the two decisions of this Court. All that can be said is that in the unreported decision before. G. B. Patnaik. J. the matter was not argued properly inasmuch as the relevant provisions of law were not placed. In view of the law that was placed before him, his decision cannot be said to be in any way in conflict with the subsequent decision which is based on noticing the legislative changes. 11. To conclude and sum up, I would bold' that the principles of stay contained in Section 10 of the Code would apply by taking aid of Section 151 of the Code and in view of the insertion of Explanation VIII in Section 11 of the Code; The learned Subordinate Judge therefore, has taken a correct view of the matter and has rightly stayed the further proceeding of the money suit. 12. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the cases I shall make no order as to costs. P.C. Misra, J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed