ORDER S.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision against the order under section 10 C.P.C. by which the eviction suit has been stayed until the decision of the title suit. 2. Petitioner Brij Mohan instituted civil suit No. 2-A of 1991 on 15.3.1991 in the Court of Additional District Judge Narsinghpur against Pooranlal and four others for declaration that he is owner of the house in Gandhi Ward, Kandeli, Narsinghpur and for permanent injunction for restraining defendants no. 2 and 3, Kamla Pande and Usha Pande from selling this house or any portion thereof to defendant no. 1 Pooranlal. Thereafter on 6.5.1991 Brij Mohan filed civil suit no. 2-A of 1991 in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Narsinghpur against Pooranlal for eviction under section 12 (1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground of disclaimer of his title. According to the plaintiff Pooranlal in his tenant since May 1986 and he was paying rent to him upto November 1990. The title Suit was filed as Pooranlal started asserting that the' house belongs to Kamla Pande and Usha Pande and he was intending to purchase it from them. 3. Pooranlal filed an application under Section 10. C.P.C. in the eviction suit for its stay on the plea that the question whether he is tenant of the plaintiff is in issue in the previously instituted title suit and also in the eviction suit. This plea found favour with the trial Judge and he stayed the proceedings of the eviction suit until the decision of the previous suit. 4. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent. It was served upon him on 1.6.1995 but none appeared for him. He was proceeded exparte. 5. After close scrutiny of the copies of the plaints in both the suits and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the opinion that the impugned ordre must be set aside. 6. The object of Section 10 C.P.C. is to avoid conflict of judicial decisions by preventing Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating upon two parallel suits in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same. 6. The object of Section 10 C.P.C. is to avoid conflict of judicial decisions by preventing Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating upon two parallel suits in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same. Section 10 C.P.C. would apply when (a) the matter in issue in both the suits is directly and substantially the same and (b) the Court in which the previously instituted suit is pending has jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. 7. The test of applicability of Section 10 C.P.C. to a particular case is whether on a final decision being reached in the previous suit such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. There must be substantial identity of the subject matter and the field of controversy between the parties in the two suits. 8. In A.C.N. Roy Vs. National Coal Development Corporation A.I.R. 1973 M.P. 14, it has been held by this Court that the provision of Section 10 C.P.C. can only apply where the subject matter of the subsequent suit is directly and substantially involved in the previously instituted suit and it is only then that subsequent suit is to be stayed. The idea is that as soon as the previously instituted suit is decided the subsequent suit will practically stand disposed of as its conclusion would operate res judicata and, therefore, in such a case only the subsequent suit ought to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code. It was further held that it may be that, on account of the defence taken by the defendants, there may be one issue common in the two suits, but that is not enough to attract the provisions of Section 10 of the Code. Similar view was expressed in Kunwarlal vs. Surajmal A.I.R. 1963 M.P. 58. 9. In C.L. Tandon Vs. Prempal Singh A.I.R. 1978 Delhi 221 it has been observed that the mere fact that one of the major issues is common to both the suits will not by itself serve the purpose. One valuable touch stone for determining whether the matters in issue are directly and substantially the same is whether the decision in the prior suit will bring the principle of res judicata into operation in the subsequent suit. 10. One valuable touch stone for determining whether the matters in issue are directly and substantially the same is whether the decision in the prior suit will bring the principle of res judicata into operation in the subsequent suit. 10. In the present case the question whether defendant Pooranlal is tenant of the plaintiff is directly in issue in the eviction suit. The plaintiff must prove the relationship of landlord and tenant in this suit. He has pleaded that defendant Pooranlal was paying rent to him from May, 1986 to November, 1990. He has to establish this plea. He need not prove his title in this suit. In the earlier suit the dispute is really between the plaintiff and defendants no. 2 and 3 who are claiming title to the house. In that suit the question whether the defendant no. 1 was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff is only incidental. That is not directly and substantially in issue. That has been pleaded in order to show that the plaintiff has all along been claiming title to this house and the induction of the tenants by him was an assertion of his title. That dispute is primarily between the plaintiff and the persons from whom defendant Pooranlal is intending to purchase the house. In the eviction suit if the plaintiff is able to establish that defendant Pooranlal was his tenant the latter would be estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff during the continuance of the tenancy. 11. Even in a case where the suit is stayed under section 10 C.P.C. it is necessary to decide the application under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The tenant must deposit rent as per section 13(1) of the Act if he wants the protection provided by this Act. 12. In the result the impugned order is set aside.