JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - Petitioner Laxmidhar Sahu had filed an application u/s 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of Gouranga Charan Sahu (opp. party No. 1) on the ground of wilful default. In the application, it was averred that in the year 1974 opp. party No. 1 was inducted as a tenant of the disputed house under the father of the Petitioner and the rent was fixed at Rs. 120.00 per month. As opp. party No. 1 defaulted in payment of rent from August 7 1979 the application u/s 7 of the Act was filed in the year 1980 which was numbered as H.R.C. case No. 38 of 1980. The learned House Rent Controller by his judgment dated 11-2-1982 directed the opp. party No. 1 to deliver vacant possession of the house after giving the finding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant in between the Petitioner and the opp. party No. 1 and the opp. party No. 1 is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned House Rent Controller opp. party No. 1 filed an appeal before the appellate authority opp. party No. 2 which was numbered as H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982. After filing the appeal under the Act, opp. party No. 1 tiled Title Suit No. 169 of 1983 on 15-4-1983 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack disputing the title of the Petitioner regarding the disputed house. After filing the suit, opp. party No. 1 filed a petition on 1-7-1983 before opp. party No. 2 the appellate authority under the House Rent Control Act praying therein to stay hearing of the H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 till disposal of Title Suit No. 169 of 1983. On 22-8-1983 the opp. party No. 2, the appel1ate authority passed the order of stay of the H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 till disposal of Title Suit No. 169 of 1983. This order of the appel1ate authority passed in H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 dated 22-8-1982 is assailed in this writ application. 2. On 22-8-1983 the opp. party No. 2, the appel1ate authority passed the order of stay of the H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 till disposal of Title Suit No. 169 of 1983. This order of the appel1ate authority passed in H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 dated 22-8-1982 is assailed in this writ application. 2. The learned advocate for the Petitioner (landlord) submits that House Rent Control proceeding being earlier than the institution of the suit, by applying the principle of Sections 10 and 151 CPC (hereinafter referred to as ('the Code'), the further proceedings of the suit could have been stayed but not H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 and the order of the appellate authority opp. party No. 2 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. The learned advocate for the opp. party No. 1 on the other hand submits that since the tenant has denied the title of the landlord for which he has filed Title Suit No. 169 of 1983 further proceedings of H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 should be stayed till disposal of the Title Suit. According to the advocate for the opp. party No. 1, the proceeding under the House Rent Control Act being 'of summary nature, should be stayed as there can be only proper adjudication of title in the Title Suit. 3. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the further proceedings of the appeal under the House Rent Control Act could have been stayed as a Title Suit has been filed regarding the disputed properties, where under the tenant has disputed title of the landlord. 4. Section 10 of the Code makes a provision of staying the trial of a suit "in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or under whom they or any of them are litigating under the same title". Ordinarily it is the Civil Court which is to determine the nature of relationship between the litigating parties. Orissa House Rent Control Act has been enacted for the control of rent and eviction of tenants. Ordinarily it is the Civil Court which is to determine the nature of relationship between the litigating parties. Orissa House Rent Control Act has been enacted for the control of rent and eviction of tenants. If the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed before the authority under the H.R.C. Act, the Controller has to decide the relationship of landlord and tenant and if he decides that there is no such relationship, the proceeding has to be terminated without proceeding to decide whether the tenant can be evicted under the provisions of Section 7 of the House Rent Control Act. In other words the Special Tribunal though has limited jurisdiction created under a special statute, is entitled to decide the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Before amendment of the CPC in 1976 by various decisions of High Courts and also by Supreme Court, the principle of Sections 10 and 151 of the Code were made applicable to the decisions by the authorities who are to adjudicate the title under the special statutes. In the amended CPC 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 to decide this case 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. This explanation makes it dear that the principle of res judicata is also applicable to cases which are triable by Courts of limited jurisdiction. 'The decision rendered by a Court of limited jurisdiction shall also operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit 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. In Bijay Kumar Agalwalla and Another Vs. Durgabai Sharma and Another, the question arose as to when the relationship of landlord and tenant is before the House Rent Control Authority whether a subsequent suit field, to decide, the question of title between the parties is to be stayed or not. In Bijay Kumar Agalwalla and Another Vs. Durgabai Sharma and Another, the question arose as to when the relationship of landlord and tenant is before the House Rent Control Authority whether a subsequent suit field, to decide, the question of title between the parties is to be stayed or not. Their Lordships have decided that when the relationship of landlord and tenant is in question and is pending before the House Rent Control authorities, the subsequent suit filed by the parties for arrear of rent in which the title has to be adjudicated is to be stayed by applying the provisions of Sections 10 and 151 of the Code, the subsequent suit is to be stayed. 5. In this case the proceeding under the Act is earlier in point of time than the suit. The suit was filed after the judgment was passed by the House Rent Controller and while the appeal was pending before the appel1ate authority. Applying the principle of stay contained in Sections 10 and 151 of the Code and in view of the insertion of explanation-VIII in Section 11 of the Code, we are of the opinion that the further proceedings of the appeal could not have been stayed as the House Rent Control proceeding was earlier in point of time, rather the subsequent suit could have been stayed if such an application would have been filed. 6. In the result, the order of the appellate authority dated 22-8-1983 passed in H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 vide Annexure-4 is without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. The learned appellate authority is directed to proceed with the appeal after giving due notice to both the parties. 'Since the H.R.C. Appeal No. 18 of 1982 was filed in the early part of the year 1982, the appellate authority, opp. party No. 2 is - directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously preferably by the month of May, 1990, in accordance with law after giving due notice to both the parties. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G.B. Patnaik, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.