JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.8.2013 by which an application Filed by the petitioner non-applicant under Section 21, read with Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 10, C.P.C. was rejected by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in Case No. 109/2011. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in an application filed under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 an application was moved by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 , read with Section 10 C.P.C., in which, it is prayed that a suit bearing No. 89/1994 is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Udaipur City (South) under the nomenclature Shyam Lal v. Ramji Bhai , in which, facts of the case are identical, therefore, the proceedings in this application for eviction may be stayed and, further, it is argued that a prayer was made under Order 7, Rule 11 , C.P.C. that the suit may be returned to the petitioner because subject in issue of present application is identical to the Civil Suit No. 89/1994. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly although parties of both the suits are not the same but the property in question is the same for which earlier suit No. 89/1994 was Filed by one Shyam Lal against the petitioner-non-applicant and applicant Laxmi Narayan, therefore, the application Filed by the petitioner was to be considered in the light of the above provisions but the Rent Tribunal rejected the application on totally unfounded grounds, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 4. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgment reported in 2000 WLC (Raj.) UC 530, Moti Lal & Others v. Jagdish Prasad & Others , in which, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that subsequent suit in respect of sale-deed in Civil Court is required to be stayed till decision of the earlier suit because the property in question is the same. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the property in question may be same but the parties are not same because earlier the suit was Filed by one Shyam Lal against respondent-applicant and petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the property in question may be same but the parties are not same because earlier the suit was Filed by one Shyam Lal against respondent-applicant and petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Udaipur City (South) for eviction and handing over possession to him whereas in the present application a prayer has been made by the applicant to hand over the possession to him and plaintiff of the earlier suit No. 89/1994 is not party, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner tenant by the impugned order dated 21.8.2013 in which there is no illegality. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused entire record of the case and carefully read Section 10, C.P.C., so also, Rule 11 Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality in the order impugned because the earlier suit was Filed by one Shyam Lal who is not party in the present suit and non-petitioner applicant Laxmi Narayan and others are claiming right as landlord, therefore, the issue is altogether different which requires adjudication by the Court. 8. In the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Moti Lal (supra) the facts are altogether different because in that case the parties were same. More so, as per the judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (2) WLC 65, Fakruddin v. Rent Tribunal , it has been held that the Tribunal has power to follow its own procedure and provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable upon the Tribunal. 9. in view of above, no interference is called for in this case. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******