JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---The applicants, who are the plaintiffs in the original Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 pending in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, are calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the said Court on 24-6-1992, whereby the said Court allowed the application filed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present non-applicant, who was the defendant in the suit, for staying the proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 till the decision in Second Appeal Nos. 381 of 1989, 382 of 1989 and 386 of 1989 by this Court. 2. To appreciate the controversy involved in the case, few relevant facts leading to the present controversy may be noticed. The applicants (for short the plaintiffs) initially made an application under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) before the Rent Controller having jurisdiction over the matter to permit the plaintiffs to determine the tenancy of the non-applicant Shri Shivaji Education Society (for short the defendant). The defendant contested the application filed by the plaintiffs before the Rent Controller. One of the points for determination in the said proceedings before the Rent Controller was, whether the plaintiffs were owners and landlords of the suit house. The other issues related to grounds under Clause 13(3) of the Rent Control Order. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence and hearing the parties arrived at the finding that the plaintiffs were the owners and landlords of the defendant and found that the plaintiffs are entitled to permission under Clause 13(3)(i),(ii),(vi) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order. Thus, the Rent Controller by an order dated 7-12-1984 after holding that the plaintiffs were landlords, granted permission to them to determine the tenancy of the defendant. The order passed by the Rent Controller, Amravati, on 7-12-1984 was challenged by the defendant by filing an appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld. 3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller on 7-12-1984 and affirmed in appeal by the order dated 25-3-1987 the defendant filed the writ petition before this Court, which too was dismissed on 13-7-1987. 3. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller on 7-12-1984 and affirmed in appeal by the order dated 25-3-1987 the defendant filed the writ petition before this Court, which too was dismissed on 13-7-1987. Letters Patent appeal came to be filed by the defendant against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 13-7-1987, the order passed by the appellate authority on 25-3-1987 and the order dated 7-12-1984 passed by the Rent Controller, and the said Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 6-10-1989. The defendant took the matter to the Supreme Court and it is not disputed that the Apex Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 6-9-1990 and thus the permission granted by the Rent Controller on 7-12-1984 attained finality. In the meanwhile, on 18-4-1987 the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant after determining the tenancy of the defendant pursuant to the permission granted by the Rent Controller and in the said suit, the defendant made an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the proceedings in the said suit be stayed till the decision of this Court in Second Appeal Nos. 381 of 1989, 382 of 1989 and 386 of 1989. It may be observed that Second Appeal No. 381 of 1989 arises out of the suit filed by the defendant, seeking declaration that the plaintiffs could not obtain permission from the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenant since they were not owners and also a prayer for injunction restraining the present plaintiffs from taking any step to determine the tenancy of the defendant. The suit for declaration and injunction filed by the defendant was dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, by the judgment and decree dated 20-9-1984. The defendant challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal and that too was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, on 20-9-1984 was upheld. The concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, and the Appellate Court are under challenge in Second Appeal No. 381 of 1989. The concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, and the Appellate Court are under challenge in Second Appeal No. 381 of 1989. It may be stated that in the second appeal, an application was filed by the tenant under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 filed by the present plaintiffs and the said application was rejected by this Court, with an observation that it would be open to the tenant to approach the trial Court and apply for stay of the suit on the ground that second appeal was admitted and pending in the High Court. Consequently, the defendant-tenant made an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 for stay of the suit. The Court below after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 24-6-1992 allowed the application and stayed Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 till the decision of Second Appeal Nos. 381 of 1989, 382 of 1989 and 386 of 1989. 4. The order passed on 24-6-1992 by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987, as observed above, is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision application. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and also the previous order passed by the Rent Controller. 6. Shri Chandurkar, the learned Counsel for the applicants, strenuously urged that it was not open to the Civil Court to go into the question about the relationship of landlord and tenant again, which has been duly examined and decided by the Rent Controller and, therefore, in the suit filed by the tenant, the issue as to whether the plaintiffs are landlords or not or whether there was relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties could not be decided and, therefore, the trial Court committed serious error of jurisdiction staying Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 filed by the plaintiffs, seeking possession of the disputed property and recovery of arrears of rent pursuant to the permission granted by the Rent Controller to the plaintiffs to determine the tenancy of the defendant. In support of his submission, Shri Chandurkar relies upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in (Prabhakar Atmaram Kale v. Bharat Santaji More and another)1, 1983 Mh.L.J. 426. 7. Per contra, Shri Bobde, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant/tenant, would submit that the question of ownership could not be gone into by the Rent Controller and, therefore, any finding given by the Rent Controller relating to ownership was without jurisdiction and since the question as to whether the plaintiffs were owners of the property in question or not is sub judice before this Court in Second Appeal No. 381 of 1989, the trial Court rightly stayed Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987. The contention of Shri Bobde is that when the Rent Controller was not competent and had no jurisdiction to decide the question about ownership, Explanation VIII to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the said question was without jurisdiction and not binding. Shri Bobde thus submitted that to avoid the possibility of inconsistent finding, the trial Court has rightly stayed Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987. 8. There is no dispute that before filing the present suit No. 60 of 1987 the plaintiffs made an application seeking permission of the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenant/defendant and in the said proceedings before the Rent Controller one of the points for determination framed was, whether the plaintiffs were owners and landlords of the suit house. It is also not disputed that the Rent Controller after holding enquiry, recording the evidence and hearing the parties, has arrived at the finding that the plaintiffs were owners and landlords of the tenant defendant. In rent control matters, the question of ownership, whenever and wherever is gone into, is always with respect to finding as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or not and in this background, point for determination framed by the Rent Controller, as to whether the plaintiffs were owners and landlords of the suit house, has to be read covering the controversy whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the plaintiffs were landlords of the suit house. The question of ownership has to be read and understood in that respect only and not with respect to title. Shri Chandurkar frankly submits that the finding which has been recorded by the Rent Controller on point for determination No. 1, is confined to the question whether the plaintiffs were landlords or not and that finding once having been recorded in favour of the plaintiffs and the Rent Controller granted them the permission to determine the tenancy of the tenant, the said finding cannot be re-opened again in the civil suit. 9. In Prabhakar Atmaram Kale v. Bharat Santaji More, (cited supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as under : "12. The learned District Judge here did not consider the effect of the finding pronounced by the Rent Controller between the parties or the effect of the application of the principle of res judicata, as now adumbrated under Explanation VIII to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Rent Controller and the Resident Deputy Collector acting under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short hereafter called "the Order"), exercise judicial functions and the Rent Controller is the legal Tribunal and not merely an Executive Officer. See (Bhailal v. Addl. Deputy Commr.)2, 1952 N.L.J. 613. Thus the Rent Controller, though a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction, was competent to hear and decide the issue as regards the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties before him. The finding pronounced on the issue by the Rent Controller would, therefore, operate in a subsequent suit as res judicata, notwithstanding the fact that the Rent Controller was not competent to try the subsequent suit. This precisely is the effect of the Explanation VIII to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which the learned District Judge failed to take note of. This is also the view taken by this Court in (Laxman v. Rajaram)3, 1980 Mh.L.J. 627." 10. This precisely is the effect of the Explanation VIII to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which the learned District Judge failed to take note of. This is also the view taken by this Court in (Laxman v. Rajaram)3, 1980 Mh.L.J. 627." 10. It would thus be clear from the aforesaid observations that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority acting under the Rent Control Order were exercising judicial functions and were competent to decide the issue as regards the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the finding pronounced on the issue by the Rent Controller would operate as res judicata in subsequent suits, notwithstanding the fact that the Rent Controller was not competent to try the subsequent suit. The finding recorded by the Rent Controller, therefore, that the plaintiffs were the landlords is binding between the parties and the Rent Controller was competent to decide the said issue and the said finding would definitely operate as res judicata in subsequent suits. 11. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking possession is pursuant to the permission granted by the Rent Controller, permitting the plaintiffs to determine the tenancy of the defendant/tenant and issuance of quit notice accordingly. Merely because, second appeal is pending before this Court arising out of the suit filed by the defendant/tenant, seeking declaration that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in question, the suit filed by the present plaintiffs cannot be and does not deserve to be stayed. The permission granted by the Rent Controller to the landlords/plaintiffs to determine the tenancy of the defendant/tenant cannot be re-opened in the civil suit and the Civil Court has to proceed on the basis that such permission has been validly granted. 12. For all these reasons, there was no justification for the trial Court to stay Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 filed by the plaintiffs after service of quit notice on the defendant/tenant pursuant to the permission granted by the Rent Controller. 13. Consequently, the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, on 24-6-1992 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. As a result thereof, the application filed by the defendant under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands rejected. 13. Consequently, the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, on 24-6-1992 is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. As a result thereof, the application filed by the defendant under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands rejected. The 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, should proceed with Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 in accordance with law. No costs. The office is directed to send back the record of Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 immediately. Appeal allowed. *****