Mr. Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) ORDER passed on 7. 3. 1994 by the Competent Authority (Slum), Delhi (Annexure D) dismissing petitioner s application movedunder Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of proceedings tilldecision of the suit preferred TO by him as also the order passed on 22. 4. 1994 (Annexure E) by respondent No. 1dismissing the petitioner s appeal are underchallenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ). It is not in dispute that a suit for specific performance of contract wasfiled by the petitioner against respondents 2 and 3 seeking to enforce an agreement,alleged to have been entered into between him and respondents 2 and 3 for saleof a property. After institution of suit, a petition under Section 19 of the Slumarea (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act )was filed by respondents 2 and 3 seeking permission to file proceedings for evictionagainst the petitioner from the premises in question. During the pendency ofthese proceedings, petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of the Codeseeking stay of these proceedings till the pendency of the civil suit. ( 3 ). Petitioner s application was dismissed by the Competent Authority (Slum)on 7. 3. 1994 after following a decision of this Court in Inder Pal Singh Hassanwalia v. Mis Bir Tibetan Woollen Mills ( AIR 1974 Del. 95 ) that Section 10 ofthe Code applies only to suits and cannot apply where one of the two proceedings is not a suit. Another decision in Gurcharan Singh v. Smt. Kaur (AIR 1975del. 36) was also followed in declining petitioner s prayer for stay of the suit. Appeal preferred TO by the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent No. 1 throughthe impugned order dated 22. 4. 1994. ( 4 ). I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. Reliance has been placed by Counsel for the respondent on a decision of this Court in Jai Singh Rana v. Mohinder Mohan Goel (1994 - IV AD (Del. 582)) to the effect that it is not in every case where a prayer is made for stay of proceedings for eviction pending before Rent Controller during pendency of suit of specific performance that injunction be granted staying the eviction proceedings. 582)) to the effect that it is not in every case where a prayer is made for stay of proceedings for eviction pending before Rent Controller during pendency of suit of specific performance that injunction be granted staying the eviction proceedings. But the decision in fai Singh Rana s (supra) will not be helpful in so far as the instant proceedings are concerned since the question involved here is as to whether during pendency of a suit for specific performance, which admittedly has been instituted prior to taking out proceedings under the Act seeking permission to file proceedings for eviction, later proceedings taken out under the Actshould or should not be stayed. Stage for seeking tenant s eviction has notreached. It is only when permission is granted that such proceedings can beinstituted by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioner. Question might arise inthose proceedings whether such proceedings should or should not be stayed dueto the pendency of civil suit. The scope of proceedings under the Act seekingpermission to take out eviction proceedings was considered by this Court ingurcharan Singh s case (supra) and the Competent Authority rightly by placingreliance thereon and in Inder Pal Singh Hassanwalia s case dismissed the application under Section 10 of the Code is not maintainable. There is no ground toorder the stay of proceedings under the Act since the scope of proceedings underthe Act is neither nor can be subject matter of an issue before a Civil Court in asuit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale. The petition, in view of the above, deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.