JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.4.2010 whereby learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 10 CPC. 2. It appears from the record that earlier Ajeet Singh was the landlord of the property in question from whom it was purchased by the present respondent-plaintiff Nahar Singh by registered sale deed dated 1.12.07. 3. Petitioner filed a suit on 4.12.07 seeking mandatory injunction of the property praying therein that property in question should not be registered in the name of present respondent without first settling the amount which the petitioner incurred in repairs and maintenance of the property in question but the present respondent was not the defendant to the suit filed by the petitioner. 4. After the present respondent became owner of the property in question and obviously landlord as well, filed a suit on 31.1.08 under section 9 of the Rent Control Act,2001, for which he served a notice on 10.12.07, indisputably no reply thereto was filed by the petitioner, however, written statement was filed on 4.4.08 and the stage when permission was not granted to cross-examine the witnesses, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP-1086/09 and this Court while disposing of the said writ petition granted permission for cross-examination of the witnesses and the date was also fixed for cross-examination. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an application for taking the affidavit of one Vasudev Satyani on record, and what was alleged in the written statement to set up a different version in the affidavit was not taken on record by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 21.8.09, against which he again preferred a writ petition and was rejected by this Court on 18.9.09, and Special Appeal also met with the same fate on being rejected vide order dated 8/4/2010. At this stage, the petitioner filed a fresh application under section 10 CPC on 11th March,2010 on the premise that suit pending before the learned trial Judge has direct nexus on the dispute raised by the plaintiff-respondent in the instant matter and hence proceedings in the present matter may be stayed till disposal of the suit filed by him, however, this application was rejected by the Tribunal by detailed order dated 16.4.2010. 5. 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that suit filed by the petitioner is basically in regard to expenses which he incurred over the property in question for its repairs and maintenance and that has to be adjusted and if it is considered by the learned trial Judge, he could not be considered to be a defaulter and this is the only possible adjustment to resolve the controversy raised in the suit filed for eviction on the ground of default before the learned Tribunal and in these circumstances, the proceedings before the Tribunal in the instant matter are required to be stayed. Counsel for petitioner in alternative submits that in terms of section 18 of the Rent Control Act,01 the civil court may not be having any jurisdiction to examine the eviction proceedings which are covered under the Act of 2001 being the dispute between the landlord and the tenant but the matters connected & ancillary thereto, can be examined by the Tribunal and in these circumstances, the proceedings pending before the Civil Court initiated at the behest of the petitioner may be clubbed with the proceedings for eviction pending before the Tribunal and that may serve the purpose. 6. Counsel for the respondent while supporting the orders submits that present proceedings have no co-relationship with the plea which has been raised by the non-petitioner-plaintiff pending eviction application. He further submits that eviction proceedings has to be tried under the provisions of Act of 2001 and no civil court has jurisdiction, in absence whereof, section 10 has no application in the facts of the instant case. 7. I have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. The narration of facts, referred to supra, clearly shows that present petitioner has filed applications one after other only just to defer the proceedings for one or the other reason. So far the relief claimed in suit filed by the petitioner pending before the learned trial Judge is concerned, is basically that the sale deed should not be registered without first adjustment of the amount which has been paid/incurred by him in repairs and maintenance of the property in question, as alleged. So far the relief claimed in suit filed by the petitioner pending before the learned trial Judge is concerned, is basically that the sale deed should not be registered without first adjustment of the amount which has been paid/incurred by him in repairs and maintenance of the property in question, as alleged. However, at the same time, the petitioner, in the written statement filed in eviction proceedings initiated against him, took a plea that what has been incurred must be adjusted towards the rent; but what has been prayed for in the pending suit and the plea taken in the written statement filed in eviction proceedings has no inter-relationship and Section 10 in the facts of the instant case has no application. So far submission for consolidation of both the proceedings is concerned, it has no relationship with the dispute which has been raised by the non-petitioner-plaintiff in eviction proceedings under the Act of 2001 and even otherwise it is not permissible under law and taking note of what has been observed (supra), the petitioner has filed applications one after another, this Court otherwise is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the facts of the instant case. 8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******