S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) ALL these civil revision applications have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court inter alia for an authoritative pronouncement on application of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( cpc for brevity) in a rent control proceeding having regard to the decision of a Division Bench (Coram: M. Jagannadha Rao and J. Eswara prasad, JJ.) of this Court in Soni v. K. Nagesivara Rao. ( 2 ) THE undisputed fact of the matter as noticed from C. R. P. No. 545 of 1999 is as follows. The petitioner herein namely, a. P. State Wakf Board filed a suit in o. S. No. 61 of 1980 inter alia in relation to t. S. Nos. 396 and 397 containing shopping complex and burial ground. The said suit was decreed in relation to burial ground, but was dismissed in relafion to the shopping complex, against which a. S. No. 2348 of 1987 has been preferred before this Court and the same is pending. The first and the second respondents claiming themselves to be the landlords filed cases for eviction against the third respondent which were marked as r. C. C. Nos. 91 and 92 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior civil Judge, Rajahmundry. In the saia Rent control proceedings, the petitioner herein filed applications purported to be under order 1, Rule 10 CPC inter alia on the ground that the question as regards title is pending consideration in the aforementioned appeal. The learned Rent controller dismissed the said applications by a common order dated 19-1-1999, on two grounds - (i) the petitioner had not stated as to whether it intends to get impleaded as petitioner or respondent and (ii) in a rent control proceeding the disputed question of title cannot be determined in view of the division Bench decision in Soni s case (1 supra ). Questioning the said order, the present revision petitions have been filed. ( 3 ) A learned single Judge of this Court considered the aforementioned Division bench decision in Soni s case (1 supra) and observed that the said decision may not have any application in the fact of the present case. ( 4 ) MRS. Questioning the said order, the present revision petitions have been filed. ( 3 ) A learned single Judge of this Court considered the aforementioned Division bench decision in Soni s case (1 supra) and observed that the said decision may not have any application in the fact of the present case. ( 4 ) MRS. A. Jayanthi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the decision of the Division bench in Soni s case (1 supra) has no application to the fact of the present case inasmuch as the petitioner herein has also filed a suit which is pending adjudication at the appellate stage before this Court. The learned counsel would contend that in the event the properties are declared to be wakf properties in terms of the notification issued under the Wakf Act, 1964, the provisions of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 would have no application. The learned counsel would further contend that it became necessary for the petitioner to get itself impleaded in the aforementioned rent control proceedings for the purpose of filing an application for stay of the suit in terms of Section 10 CPC. ( 5 ) MR. M. S. K. Sastry, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that the decision in son; (1 supra) applies in all force in the fact of the present matter. The learned counsel would contend that principles of Order 1 rule 10 CPC must be applied having regard to the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Rent Control Act. as a suit has already been filed, even the exceptions specified in Soni would not apply in the instant case. In Soni, it was held: the limited jurisdiction that is conferred by the Act on the Controller is to decide whether the denial or claim by the tenant is bona fide or not. If that is the position of a tenant who is a party to the eviction case it is in our opinion clear that a third party who proposes to get impleaded in the eviction proceeding before the Rent controller is a fortiori precluded from joining in for the purpose of a decision on the question as to the landlord s title. In our view the act is a special Act by which a statutory protection is granted to a tenant and at the same time the landlord is intended to have a speedier remedy than in a regular suit. It is not the intention of the Legislature that complicated questions of title are to be adjudicated by the Rent controller. The proper procedure for the third party would be to file a regular civil suit before a civil court for deciding the dispute as to title raised by him and obtain appropriate relief. It was further held that even if a situation for collusive suit for eviction against the tenant arises there are adequate remedies in the civil law to seek appropriate declarations. It was observed: in fact the greater advantage in not allowing third parties to intervene and raise questions of title, is that unscrupulous tenants cannot any longer get collusive applications filed by the third parties claiming title so as to protract the rent control proceedings. The advantage of denying to third parties the right to raise questions of title, in our view far outweighs the doubtful advantage of permitting such persons to get impleaded. ( 6 ) WE may however notice that their lordships did not totally exclude the applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but held that the same may be applicable subject to certain limitations. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may not be necessary for this court to go into a larger question as to whether in a rent control proceeding the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC would totally be excluded or not. Ordinarily, however, an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC would not lie in a rent control proceeding unless it is shown that the applicant is interested in any of the issues involved. Ordinarily, however, an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC would not lie in a rent control proceeding unless it is shown that the applicant is interested in any of the issues involved. The proviso appended to Sec. 10 of the Rent Control Act reads thus: provided that where the tenant, denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the third respondent has not denied or disputed the title of first and second respondents. The suit is being contested by the said respondents on merits. ( 9 ) IT has been contended, as noticed hereinbefore, the main purpose for which the petitioner herein intends to get itself implcaded as party in the eviction petitions is to obtain an order of stay, pending adjudication of right, title and interest in relation to T. S. No. 396 in A. S. No. 2348 of 1987 filed before this Court. The petitioner did not state that it is interested in any of the issues involved in the eviction petitions. In fact, the petitioner is not altogether remediless. In case where the provisions of section CPC have no application, an application for injunction under Sec. 151 cpc for restraining the first and second respondents from proceeding with the eviction proceedings would be maintainable in view of the decision of the apex Court in Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal. As the petitioner herein would obtain the same result by filing an application for injunction against first and second respondents in the pending appeal, we are of the opinion that the application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the eviction proceedings for the purpose of obtaining stay thereof in terms of Section 10 CPC should not have been entertained. As the petitioner herein would obtain the same result by filing an application for injunction against first and second respondents in the pending appeal, we are of the opinion that the application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the eviction proceedings for the purpose of obtaining stay thereof in terms of Section 10 CPC should not have been entertained. Even in son; (1 supra) as noticed herein before, it has been held that a third party who proposes to get himself impleaded in the rent control proceedings is precluded from joining in the lis for the purpose of decision on the question as to the landlord s title. The said decision applies also in the fact of the present matter particularly having regards to the fact that the question of title as regards the petitioner is pending consideration in the aforementioned a. S. No. 2348 of 1987 in the Court. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Soni (1 supra) that when in a situation of this nature a third party approaches the Rent controller in an eviction proceeding to get himself impleaded as party under Order 1 rule 10 CPC for obtaining a decision on the question of title, he is precluded from doing so. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the civil revision petitions are not maintainable and they are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.