JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 7.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge. No. 2. Alwar in Civil Suit No. 4/96 whereby, the.application of the petitioners-defendants moved under Section 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. for stay of the proceedings was rejected. 2. During the course of hearing, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the deed was executed between the petitioners and the non-petitioners on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- as regards the shop in question. Thereafter. the petitioners started the business of Photography in the said shop. Since the respondents-landlord were not in immediate need to occupy the shop in question, the petitioners- tenants advanced a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondents for carrying out necessary repairs and construction. Consequently, the rent was revised to Rs. 400/- per month on the landlord to which the petitioner did not object and hence the agreed rent was Rs. 400/- per month. Lateron, some disputes arose between the parties and the respondents declined to adjust the amount of Rs. 30,000/- against the rent hence. the petitioners-defendants filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No. 117/92 against the respondents-plaintiffs for protection of their possession against forcible ejectment. Thereafter. the second suit bearing Civil Suit no. 4/96 was filed by the respondents- plaintiffs against the petitioners who were arrayed as defendants in the said suit. The respondents sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground of default in payment of rent under the provisions of Section 13(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 for short "the Act of 1950". The said suit is still pending at the stage of framing of issues and evidence is yet to be led by the parties on the question of default while in the first suit the issues have been framed by the trial Court and it is at the stage of recording evidence of the parties. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 4/96. the petitioners-defendants filed an application for stay of proceedings in the said suit by invoking the provisions of Section, 10 Civil Procedure Code. on the ground that the matter was death and substantialy in issue in the second suit which was also in issue in the earlier suit and, therefore, the trial Court should stay the proceedings in the said subsequent suit. 3. on the ground that the matter was death and substantialy in issue in the second suit which was also in issue in the earlier suit and, therefore, the trial Court should stay the proceedings in the said subsequent suit. 3. Prima facie, I am of the that before the provisions of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code. are attracted to a suit where parallel proceedings are pending between the parties by way of different suits before a court between the same parties the plaintiff has to make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court by specifically stating that subject matter at issue in both the suits is directly and substantially the same and also between the same parties who are litigating under the same title. It is further enjoined upon the trial Court that before the Court stays the proceedings in both the suits, it should come to a conclusion that decision in the former suits will operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit even though, the relief prayed for in the former suit and subsequent suit may differ. The dominant object of Section 10 Civil Procedure Code. is that no person should be vexed twice with regard to the same matter in issue and there should not be conflicting judgments in two parallel suits in respect of the same matter at issue and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation with a view to ensure speedy justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and also perused the impugned-judgment/order dated 7.8.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1. Alwar in Civil Suit No. 4/96 which is under challenge in the present revision petition. Prima-facie, I am of the view that since the matter in issue in the earlier suit is substantially different than the dispute which has been raised in the subsequent suit, no purpose would have been served by staying the proceedings pending between the parties in Civil Suit No. 4/96. Moreover, the provisions of the Act of 1950 are statutory in nature and it is an special legislation meant for deciding the disputes between the landlords and the tenants and only those parties will come within the purview of the said enactment if the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is established at first instance. Moreover, the provisions of the Act of 1950 are statutory in nature and it is an special legislation meant for deciding the disputes between the landlords and the tenants and only those parties will come within the purview of the said enactment if the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is established at first instance. If the relationship of landlord and tenant or title itself is in dispute, such matters are not attracted widen the ambit of the Act of 1950 and controversy with regard to the same can be decided by separate proceedings not falling within the purview of the said Act. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decisions of the various High Courts in the matters of Shri Ram Tiwary and another v. Bholi Devi and another, AIR 1994 Patna 76 , M/s Fulchand Motilal and another v. M/s Manhar Lall Jetha Lall Mehta, AIR 1973 Patna 196 and Smt. Devi v. Banwari Lal, WLC 1998(1) 633. 6. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid judgments and in my view the ratio of the aforesaid judgments are not attracted to this case and the same are distinguishable. 7. I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order dated 7.8.1948. 8. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed in linune being not maintainable on merits.Petition dismissed. *******