JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel as well as Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Narzari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.07.2019 passed in Title Suit No. 22/2018 by the learned Munsiff, Biswanath Chariali, whereby the Court below rejected the application under Section 10 of the CPC, 1908 for stay of the suit. 3. For the purpose of disposal of the instant application, it is relevant to take note that the petitioner had filed a suit being registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 54/2018 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Tezpur. The case of the petitioner as plaintiff in the said suit is that the petitioner carried on his business in the name and style of the proprietor firm “M/s Ashok Motors” which is the authorised dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra vehicle. It is the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that as he was looking for a land for developing and to start the business of dealership of Mahindra and Mahindra, he came across the proforma defendant who is the husband of the defendant. The defendant admittedly owns a plot of land measuring 1 katha 10 lecha covered by Dag No. 973 periodic Patta No. 128 situated at village Lehugaon under Biswanath mouza, which is more specifically described in Schedule-A to the said plaint. On proper negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant in the said suit, a deed of agreement was entered into on 21.05.2012 whereby, a plot of land measuring 30 feet in front side and 50 feet in length would be leased out and the said deed of lease agreement was for a period of 18 years and the monthly rental for the land was fixed at Rs. 5,500/- per month and the monthly rental would be enhanced @ 10% after expiry of every 3 (three) years. 4. The petitioner had also in pursuance to the Deed of lease agreement transferred certain funds as alleged in the plaint and the defendant/respondent herein, with the help of her husband built a house over the area specified. It was also agreed that the amount advanced by the petitioner to the respondent would be adjusted @ Rs. 4. The petitioner had also in pursuance to the Deed of lease agreement transferred certain funds as alleged in the plaint and the defendant/respondent herein, with the help of her husband built a house over the area specified. It was also agreed that the amount advanced by the petitioner to the respondent would be adjusted @ Rs. 1,500/- per month against the monthly rental. Upon completion of the said house building, the petitioner started his business over the house. In the year 2017, the petitioner entered into an additional agreement to lease whereby the additional plot of land measuring 25 feet length and 22 feet breadth would be leased out to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the said additional lease agreement. Subsequent thereto, certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent herein and taking into consideration the steps taken by the defendant/respondent in initiating the proceedings before the Circle Officer, Biswanath Chariali and the issuance of a pleaders notice on 31.10.2018, the petitioner filed the suit seeking specific performance of execution and registration of formal lease deed of the land described in Schedule-B for mandatory and permanent injunction etc. For the purpose of the instant lis it would be relevant to quote the reliefs as sought for in Title Suit No. 54/2018: (1) To pass a decree of specific performance of execution and registration of a formal lease deed for the entire leasehold land measuring 30 feet in breadth × 50 feet in length in the front and 22 feet in breadth × 25 feet in length just behind the above former area of lease incorporating all the terms and conditions as enumerated in the Deed of Lease Agreement dated 21.05.2012 and in the Deed of Lease Agreement dated 22.05.2017, and in case of failure of the defendant to execute the lease deed, the Hon’ble Court may kindly get the same executed and registered by deputing its officer. (2) To pass a decree by way of a mandatory injunction against the installation matching with the quality of the standard of showroom and service centre of the plaintiff over the leasehold land in case of her failure to do so permitting the plaintiff to construct the same of his own right to adjust the costs against the rental. (2) To pass a decree by way of a mandatory injunction against the installation matching with the quality of the standard of showroom and service centre of the plaintiff over the leasehold land in case of her failure to do so permitting the plaintiff to construct the same of his own right to adjust the costs against the rental. (3) To permanently prevent/injunct the defendant till expiry of the leasehold period from disturbing in the peaceful possession and doing business from the leasehold land and the construction made over thereon. (4) Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also decreed. (5) For all costs of the suit. The land in question in respect to which the petitioner sought for specific performance have been described in Schedule B, which for the sake of convenience is quoted herein below: SCHEDULE-B An area of 30 feet in breadth × 50 feet in length in front given under the first Deed of Lease Agreement dated 21.05.2012 with an extension just behind it given through another Deed of Additional Lease Agreement dated 22.05.2017 measuring 22 feet in breadth and 25 feet in length with RCC structures stand on the plot of land described in Schedule a above with the front of the RCC building facing the national highway. 5. In the said suit, the respondent herein along with the proforma defendant jointly filed a written statement denying to the statements and allegations contained in the plaint. Pursuant thereto, a suit was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff, before the Court of the Munsiff at Biswanath Chariali which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 22/2018 against the defendant. It is the case of the respondent who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 22/2018 that she is the exclusive owner of the room and the premises descried in the schedule to the said plaint and the defendant/petitioner herein was a tenant of the premise and building on the southern part of the suit premises since May 2012 @ Rs. 5500/- per month. It is the case of the respondent herein in Title Suit No. 22/2018. The schedule premises was constructed by the respondent herein and thereupon since 01.06.2017, the petitioners herein have been continuing his business over the schedule premises. The rent for the schedule premises was fixed at Rs. 6000/- per month. 5500/- per month. It is the case of the respondent herein in Title Suit No. 22/2018. The schedule premises was constructed by the respondent herein and thereupon since 01.06.2017, the petitioners herein have been continuing his business over the schedule premises. The rent for the schedule premises was fixed at Rs. 6000/- per month. It is the further case in Title Suit No. 22/2018 that she had requested the petitioner herein to execute the registered deed of lease in respect to the tenanted premises as described in the Schedule to the plaint and the petitioner having deliberately delayed the matter, the respondent herein asked the petitioner to vacate the premises in the month of January 2017. It is further the case of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to make any payment for rent which lead to issuance of notice for eviction on 31.10.2018. The petitioner also failed to execute the registered deed of lease. It is under such circumstances on the ground of default in making payment of the rent the suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the scheduled premises; for arrear rents as well as mense profits. The relief as sought for in Title Suit No. 22/2018 for the sake of convenience is quoted herein-below: (a) That the suit be decreed for delivery of clear and vacant possession of the suit premises as described in the schedule below thereby evicting the Defendant with his men and materials therefrom. (b) That the suit be decreed for arrear rents @ Rs. 6000/- only from the month of June 2017 to November 2018 totalling Rs. 108000/- (c) That the suit be decreed for recovery of future rents @ Rs. 6000/- only from the month of December 2018 up to the day of recovery of clear and vacant possession of the suit premises allowing the plaintiff to deposit the required court fees thereon. (d) That the suit be decreed for recovery of future mense/profit for the wrongful use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendant from the date of decree till the day of delivery of clear and vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff at such rate as the court may determine as per Order 20 Rule 12 of the CPC thereby allowing to deposit the required court fees thereon. (e) That all the cost of the suit be decreed against the Defendant. (e) That all the cost of the suit be decreed against the Defendant. (f) That all other Relief or Reliefs which the court may deem fit and proper may also be declared against the defendant. 6. The suit property was described in the Schedule to the plaint in Title Suit No. 22/2018 which is also quoted herein-below: SCHEDULE Room over premises measuring 6.70 meter in breadth and 7.61 meter in length over the plot of land covered by Dag No. 973 of P.P. No. 128 situated at village Lehugaon under Biswanath Mouza of Biswanath District. 7. Pursuant to the filing of the said suit, the defendant in Title Suit No. 22/2018 who is the petitioner herein filed his written statement. In the written statement amongst all other defences taken, a preliminary objection was taken that Title Suit No. 22/2018 ought to be stayed as the issues involved in the previously instituted suit between the same parties i.e. Title Suit No. 54/2018 before the Civil Judge at Tezpur and the Title Suit No. 22/2018 pending before the Munsiff at Biswanath Chariali are substantially and directly same with the issues in Title Suit No. 22/2018. 8. On the basis of the said preliminary objection taken in the written statement filed by the petitioner in Title Suit No. 22/2018, the parties were heard and vide the order dated 01.07.2019, the Court of the Munsiff at Biswanath Chariali vide the impugned order held that Title Suit No. 22/2018 is not liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC on the ground that the issue in both the suits are not directly and substantially similar. It is against the said order that the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Before going to the facts in the instant case, it would be relevant to take note of what Section 10 of the CPC postulates. 10. The object underlying Section 10 CPC is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue or in other words, Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The basic object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is whether on the final decision being reached in the previous suit such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies in a case 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 previously 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 suits is identical. 11. In the backdrop of the above and a perusal of the plaint in Title Suit No. 54/2018 is looked into, it would be seen that the petitioner who is the plaintiff therein, has sought for specific performance of both the agreements i.e. deed of lease dated 21.05.2012 as well as the deed of additional lease agreement dated 22.05.2017 and the subject matter for which specific performance is being sought for is the subject matter of both the lease deeds. On the other hand, a perusal of the plaint in Title Suit No. 22/2018 would go to show that the respondent who is the plaintiff in the said suit have sought for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of non payment of rent in respect to the suit premises which pertains to additional lease agreement dated 22.05.2017. While the issue in Title suit No. 54/2018 is for specific performance the issue involved in Title Suit No. 22/2018 is an issue pertaining to eviction and as such, the suit for eviction of a tenant can proceed during the pendency of a suit for specific performance of an agreement. The question therefore, which arises in Title Suit No. 22/2018 would be as to whether, the respondent who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 22/2018, could be entitled to a decree for eviction for non-payment of rent in respect to the Schedule premises as described in the Schedule to Title Suit No. 22/2018. The question therefore, which arises in Title Suit No. 22/2018 would be as to whether, the respondent who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 22/2018, could be entitled to a decree for eviction for non-payment of rent in respect to the Schedule premises as described in the Schedule to Title Suit No. 22/2018. It is also relevant to mention that the decree in Title Suit No. 51/2018 would not act as res-judicata while adjudicating Title Suit No. 22/2018. 12. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court i.e. the Court of the Munsiff, Biswanath Chariali in Title Suit No. 22/2018 and on perusal thereof I see that the trial court have duly considered these aspects of the matter while passing the impugned order including the fact that the issues in both the suits under no circumstances can be said to be directly or substantially the same. 13. In view of the above, the order impugned in the instant proceedings does not call for any interference and consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed. 14. The interim order dated 09.08.2019 thereby staying the further proceedings in Title Suit No. 22/2018 is hereby vacated and the Court of the Munsiff, Biswanath Chariali shall proceed with the disposal of Title Suit No. 22/2018 in accordance with law. 15. The parties are directed to appear in Title Suit No. 22/2018 on 30.11.2021. With the above observations, the instant petition stands dismissed. No costs.