Judgment :- Landlord in a petition under Ss.11(2),11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for recovering properties from respondents 2 to 11, is the petitioner herein. Respondents 2 to 11 who are tenants disputed the title of the petitioner. 2. The property over which petitioner claims title was gifted to it by the family which owned it. Some of the members of the family instituted O.S.50/82 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palghat for partition. Petitioner and respondents 2 to 11 herein were parties in the suit. Respondents 2 to 11 raised a contention that the family lost title to the property by adverse possession. During the pendency of that suit, petitioner filed proceedings under the Act for recovering the building from respondents 2 to 11. That suit was dismissed by the trial court. One of the defendants in the suit who was a member of the family challenged that decree in appeal before this court in A.S.288/86. Petitioner applied for stay of the proceedings in the Rent Control Court till the disposal of the appeal by this court. That application was rejected by the Rent Control Court. Hence this original petition. 3. The second proviso to S.11(1) of the Act is to the following effect:-When it shows that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord, the Rent Control Court should decide whether the denial is bonafide. If the Rent Control Court finds the denial to be bonafide, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court. Such court can pass decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in S.11. In the instant case, respondents 2 to 11 have denied the title of the petitioner. Petitioner claims title from the previous title holder by way of gift. In O.S.50/82 petitioner and respondents 2 to 11 were parties. Respondents 2 to 11 raised a contention that the family lost title to the property by adverse possession. The suit happened to be dismissed. So the Rent Control Court was logo into the question as to whether the denial of title put forward by respondents 2 to 11 was bonafide or not. Respondents 2 to 11 raised a contention that the family lost title to the property by adverse possession. The suit happened to be dismissed. So the Rent Control Court was logo into the question as to whether the denial of title put forward by respondents 2 to 11 was bonafide or not. Before the Rent Control Court entered a finding on the denial of title, petitioner sought for the stay of the proceedings during the pendency of the appeal A.S.288/86 before this court, invoking S.10 of the C.P.C. Section 23 of the Act makes applicable certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, S.10 is not extended to the Rent Control Court. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has also no case that S.10 as such is applicable to the proceedings. According to him, the principles governing S.10 should be extended to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. For S.10 to apply, the matter in issue in both courts must be directly and substantially the same. The matter in issue before this court in appeal is whether the properties are available for partition or whether the family's right has been lost by adverse possession. The issue pending before the Rent Control Court is entirely different. The Rent Control Court is concerned only with the rights of the landlord under S.11 of the Act for recovering the building. This Court while deciding the appeal will not be in a position to give any relief to the petitioner herein. Nor can the Rent Control Court in the proceedings under the Act deal with the issues raised in the appeal. Where the Court in the later proceedings has no jurisdiction to grant the relief in the previous proceedings, the principles under S.10 cannot be pressed into service. In the instant case, petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 11 are co-respondents in the appeal. The interse dispute between them has not been shown to be required to be decided for giving relief to the appellant either. Since the issues raised in the appeal and those before the Rent Control Court are entirely different, according to me, even the principles of S.10 cannot be made applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to costs.