JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is defendant in JBC Case No. 66 of 2015, is aggrieved of order dated 10.02.2016 by which the trial judge has directed him to deposit arrears of rent for the period between March, 2014 to December, 2015 within 15 days and to pay current rent to the plaintiff. He has also challenged order dated 18.07.2016 by which his application under Section 10 CPC for staying further proceeding in JBC Case No. 66 of 2015 has been dismissed and his defence has been struck-off for non-compliance of order dated 10.02.2016. 2. Stand taken by the petitioner is that during currency of lease agreement executed by the erstwhile owner namely, Nand Lal Prasad, he is not liable to pay rent to the plaintiff-Balaji Skyscrapers Construction Private Limited and, moreover, during pendency of the Title Suit No. 89 of 2014 further proceeding in JBC Case No. 66 of 2015 must remain stayed. 3. Section 10 CPC reads as under; 10. “Stay of Suit.-No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation-The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.” 4. On application of Section 10 C.P.C. the law is well-settled. In “National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parameshwara” reported in (2005) 2 SCC 256 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 8. “…......... The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical.” 5. The object behind Section 10 CPC is that two courts of concurrent jurisdiction should not render conflicting judgments. 6. In “Aspi Jal and Another Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor” reported in (2013) 4 SCC 333 , three suits for eviction were filed for different cause of actions; the third suit was filed during pendency of the first two eviction suits. When on an application under section 10 CPC the trial court stayed further proceeding in the third eviction suit till disposal of the first two eviction suits and the High Court dismissed the writ petition, the Supreme Court has observed as under, “……… As in the present case, many of the matters in issue are common, including the issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession of the suit premises, but for application of section 10 of the Code, the entire subject-matter of the two suits must be the same. This provision will not apply where a few of the matters in issue are common and will apply only when the entire subject-matter in controversy is same. In other words, the matter in issue is not equivalent to any of the questions in issue. As stated earlier, the eviction in the third suit has been sought on the ground of non-user for six months prior to the institution of that suit. It has also been sought in the earlier two suits on the same ground of non-user but for a different period. Though the ground of eviction in the two suits was similar; the same were based on different causes. It has also been sought in the earlier two suits on the same ground of non-user but for a different period. Though the ground of eviction in the two suits was similar; the same were based on different causes. The plaintiffs may or may not be able to establish the ground of non-user in the earlier two suits, but if they establish the ground of non-user for a period of six months prior to the institution of the third suit that may entitle them the decree for eviction. Therefore, in our opinion, the provisions of section 10 of the Code is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 7. Title Suit No. 89 of 2014 which has been instituted by the petitioner is in the nature of prohibitory suit. The petitioner has asserted that apprehending his ejection by the erstwhile owner namely, Nand Lal Prasad, he has filed the suit. Apparently, the cause of the action for institution of Title suit No. 89 of 2014 and JBC Case No. 66 of 2015 are entirely different. The fundamental test under Section 10 CPC is that the decision in the previously instituted suit shall constitute res judicata to the subsequent suit. Any decision in Title Suit No. 89 of 2014 apparently would not constitute res judicata to JBC No. 66 of 2016 and while so, the learned trial judge has rightly rejected the application under Section 10 CPC. 8. It is not in dispute that the erstwhile owner namely, Nand Lal Prasad has conveyed the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff-Balaji Skyscrapers Construction Private Limited through a registered sale-deed dated 21.02.2014 and he has informed the defendant through registered letter dated 25.03.2014 to pay rent to the plaintiff. The order dated 10.02.2016 records that this letter was received by the defendant on 28.03.2014. It is not in dispute that the suit for ejection of tenant under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 can be instituted by a person not necessarily owner of the suit property and it can be filed by anyone falling under the definition of landlord under Section 2(g). It is not in dispute that the suit for ejection of tenant under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 can be instituted by a person not necessarily owner of the suit property and it can be filed by anyone falling under the definition of landlord under Section 2(g). Section 2(g) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 defines landlord to include the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. 9. The plaintiff who falls under the definition of landlord under Section 2 (g) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 is entitled for arrears of rent as well as current rent and, therefore, the trial judge vide order dated 10.02.2016 has rightly directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current rent. It has come on record that the petitioner has failed to comply with order dated 10.02.2016. Obviously, the consequence of non-compliance of order dated 10.02.2016 is that the defendant's defence has been struck-off. 10. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 10.02.2016 and 18.07.2016, the writ petition is dismissed.