This revision petition arises out of an order dated 9.6.87 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2 at Mangaldoi in Title Suit No. 11 of 1986 whereby the prayer of the defendant for stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Pocedure, 1908 hereinafter "the C. P. C' was rejected. 2. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the suit pre­mises belonging to Shri Durgadhar Barman, the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 11/86. The suit was filed by Shri Durgadhar Barman for eviction of the petitioner which was numbered as Title Suit No.11/86. In the said suit, the petitioner-defendant filed a petition under Section 10 of the CPC praying for stay of the proceedings on the ground that the matter in issue in the said suit was directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties which was pending in the same Court and numbered as Title suit No.68/85. The earlier suit had been filed in the same Court by the petitioner against the opposite party for a declaratory decree to the effect that the suit house if sold has to be sold to him (the defen­dant No.1) at the prevailing market rate. The learned trial Court by impugned order dated 9.6.87 held that the matters in issue in the two suits were different and accordingly, there was no case for stay of proceedings in exercise of power under Section 10 of the CPC. This order has been challenged in pres­ent revision petition. 3. Mr. A. S. Bbattacharjee, learned counsel for the petiti­oner submits that the decision in the earlier suit will have an important bearing on the subsequent suit and, as such, it can be said that the subject matter in issue in the subsequent suit is directly or substantially the same as in the previous suit. He relies on a decision of this Court in Mahangu Prasnd Sah v. Pravag Sah, AIR 1975 Gauhati 40. Mr.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the subject matt­er of the two suits are completely different. The decision of the previous suit in no way can affect the decision in the subsequent suit which is sought to be stayed. Under such circumstance, Section 10 of the CPC will not be attracted. Reliance is placed by Mr. Gogoi on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shaw Wallace & Co. The decision of the previous suit in no way can affect the decision in the subsequent suit which is sought to be stayed. Under such circumstance, Section 10 of the CPC will not be attracted. Reliance is placed by Mr. Gogoi on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Bholanath Mandanlal, AIR 7975 Cat 411 and a decision of the Patna High Court in MIS Fulchand Motilal v. M/S Manhar lal Mehta repined in AIR 1973 Patna 196. 4. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also considered the prov­isions of Section 10, CPC as well as the various decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. The Gauhati decision relates to interpretation of the expression ''same parties." In the instant case, there is no dispute that both the suits are between the same parties and, as such, this decision does not in any way help in resolving the controversy. The decisions of the Calcutta and Patna High Conrt, however, are directly on the point. 5. Section 10 of the CPC provides: "10. Stay of suit.-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 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 in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or any court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jursidiction, or before the Supreme court". One of the essential conditions to attract Section 10 of the CPC is that the matter in issue in a suit is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. The "matter in issue" means the subject in controversy between the parties. There must be substantial iden­tity of matter in issue in the two suits. Different tests have been evolved by the courts to decide applicablity of Section 10 One of such tests, which is often applied, is whether final decision in the previous suit would operate as res judicate in the subsequent suit. There must be substantial iden­tity of matter in issue in the two suits. Different tests have been evolved by the courts to decide applicablity of Section 10 One of such tests, which is often applied, is whether final decision in the previous suit would operate as res judicate in the subsequent suit. Another test is whether in the earlier suit the Court can also grant the relief sought for in subsequent suit. There is still another test which, in my opinion, is easier for apply and more appropriate. This test is whether the decision in the previous suit would affect the decision in the subse­quent suit. If the answer is 'Yest', Section 10 would apply and the Court should stay the subsequent suit. Otherwise not. 6. Now, I turn to the fact of this case. The suit which is sought to be stayed, has been filed for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent etc. The pre­vious suit was also between the same parties. This was, how­ever, filed by the defendant in the subsequent suit, namely, the tenant for a declaratory decree to the effect that the suit house, if sold by the owner, should be sold to him. The basis of seeking such declaration was some assurance given by the owner to that effect. On such facts can it be said that the matter in issue in the suit for eviction is directly and substan­tially in issue in the previously instituted suit. Whether a deci­sion in that suit would, in any way, affect the decision in the subsequent suit. The answer to both the questions is “no". The issues in the two suits are completely different. Even if the previous suit is decreed in favour of the tenant and declara­tion sought for is granted, it will in no way affect the deci­sion in the subsequent suit which is a plain and simple suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona 6de requirement of the landlord. It is difficult to compre­hend as to how the matter in issue in this suit can be said to be directly and substantially a issue in the previous suit. The reliefs sought for in the two suits are also completely diffe­rent and independent of each other. It is difficult to compre­hend as to how the matter in issue in this suit can be said to be directly and substantially a issue in the previous suit. The reliefs sought for in the two suits are also completely diffe­rent and independent of each other. A decision in the previous suit can in no way affect the decision in the subsequent suit. As such, Section 10 of the C. P. C. is not attracted. 7. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, the learned trial Court was justified in holding that Section 10 was not attracted to the facts of the instant case and in rejecting the petition under Section 10 of the C. P. C. I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs.