ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/ non-applicant (for short ‘the petitioner’) challenging the order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer (for short ‘the court below’) in Original Application No.34/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 & 151 CPC was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit No.66/2013 for specific performance of agreement/ contract and permanent injunction relating to immovable property, which was earlier on rent. The respondent/non-applicant (for short ‘the respondent’) filed a counter claim. He further submitted that after filing the counter claim, the respondent filed Original Application under the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) before the court below with respect to the same property for which the petitioner has filed the suit for specific performance. He also submitted that on receiving the notice of the rent application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 10 and 151 CPC specifically stating that the relief sought for by the respondent in the rent application is the same which has been sought by him in the counter claim. He submitted that the court below without appreciating the complete material available on the record and the provisions of law, dismissed the said application vide order dated 16.03.2021. In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Fajal Ahmed Vs. Syed Sultan Ahmed, reported in 2018(3) Civil Court Cases 389 (M.P.), delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the counter claim was filed by the respondent on the basis of termination of the tenancy after serving the legal notice dated 21.01.2013 for termination of tenancy w.e.f. 28.02.2013. He further submitted that the fresh rent application was filed by the petitioner on the grounds as provided under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. He submitted that since the counter claim and the fresh rent application both, are based on different grounds, and therefore, the provisions of Section 10 CPC will not be applicable in the matter. In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Om Prakash Khandaria Vs. He submitted that since the counter claim and the fresh rent application both, are based on different grounds, and therefore, the provisions of Section 10 CPC will not be applicable in the matter. In support of his submissions, counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. Om Prakash Khandaria Vs. Navratan Mal & Ors., reported in 2013 3 RLW (Raj.) 2089 (delivered by learned Single Judge, Principal Seat at Jodhpur); 2. Chetna Dadhich Vs. Mehrunisa, reported in (2008) 1 RLW (Raj.) 127 (delivered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court); 3. Auto Center Vs. Shreekant, reported in 2018 0 Supreme (Raj.) 630 (delivered by learned Single Judge, Principal Seat at Jodhpur); and 4. the order dated 06.08.2009 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramkishan & Ors. Vs. Bajranglal & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2103/2007). 4. Heard the arguments advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties. 5. The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of agreement/ contract and permanent injunction stating that he purchased the property in question through an agreement. The respondent (defendant therein) submitted the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and also specifically stated in paragraph 24 of the counter claim that they have terminated the tenancy by issuing the legal notice dated 21.01.2013 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 28.02.2013 and prayed in the counter claim as under:- ^^vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd oknh lfefr dk okn O;; lfgr fujLr djrs gq, izfroknh la[;k 1 ds i{k esa pj.k la[;k 23 esa of.kZr ,aoe layXu ekufp= esa gjs jax ls nf’kZr Hkkx ls oknh lfefr dks fu"dkflr djus ,aoe mldk vkf/kiR; izfroknh la[;k 1 dks fnykus] : 38]000@& fdjk;k rFkk : 1]00]000 e/;orhZ ykHk dh fMdzh O;; lfgr ikfjr dh tk;sA izfrnkok izLrqr djus dh rkfj[k ls iz'uxr ifjlj dk vkf/kiR; feyus rd : 25]000 izfr ekg dh nj ls e/;orhZ ykHk fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k Hkh ikfjr djus dh vuqadik djsaA** 6. The respondent- Rajendra Mehta filed a Rent Application No.34/2019 for vacation of the property in question on the grounds provided under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. He submitted that the material alterations have been made by the petitioner in the rented premises and has made default in making payment of rent. The respondent- Rajendra Mehta filed a Rent Application No.34/2019 for vacation of the property in question on the grounds provided under Section 9 of the Act of 2001. He submitted that the material alterations have been made by the petitioner in the rented premises and has made default in making payment of rent. In the prayer clause of the application, he made following prayer:- ^^;kfpdk ds in la[;k 3 esa vafdr fdjk;k'kqnk ifjlj ls vizkFkhZ@izR;FkhZ lfefr dks csn[ky fd;k tkdj mldk okLrfod ,oa HkkSfrd fjDr vkf/kiR; izkFkhZ@;kph dks fnyk;s tkus ckcr iqu% izkfIr@olwyh izek.k i= ¼vkKfIr½ cgd izkFkhZ@;kph fo:} izR;FkhZ tkjh fd;k tkosA** 7. The provision of section 10 CPC provides for stay of the suit on certain conditions, which reads thus: "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 have 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.” 8. The grounds for counter claim submitted by the respondent are quite different than the grounds for filing a fresh rent application, though may be for the same property. 9. In the case of Fajal Ahmed (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court in paragraph 10 has observed as under:- “10. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Sarita Rathore (supra). In the present case also, the defendant has entered into an agreement for sale and sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- has been paid to the plaintiff and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, when the sale deed was not executed, therefore, the suit has been filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract. Thus, the fate of the subsequent eviction suit is dependent on the fate of suit for specific performance. However, when the sale deed was not executed, therefore, the suit has been filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract. Thus, the fate of the subsequent eviction suit is dependent on the fate of suit for specific performance. If defendant succeed in his suit and decree is executed he would become the owner of the suit property. In such event, defendant would not be entitled to get decree in his suit for eviction. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid, the subsequent suit is liable to be stayed. It is further to be noted that as per Section 10 of the CPC the subject matter of both the suits are not required to be identical, however, even if the cause of action in the subsequent suit is substantially similar, then the subsequent suit is required to be stayed.” In the case of Om Prakash Khadaria (supra), the learned Single Judge of Principal Seat at Jodhpur, has observed that ‘subsequent suit is permissible under the law, if cause of action and grounds are entirely different than the earlier suit.’ Paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant, which reads thus:- “18. In view of above, while following the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Supra), this writ petition is allowed for the reason that subsequent suit is permissible under the law, if cause of action and grounds are entirely different than the earlier suit. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.7.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and trial court is directed to proceed in the suit and decide the same with one year.” In the matter of Chetna Dadhich & Anr. (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph 8 has observed as under:- “(8). In the present case, if the provisions of Section 32 are correctly projected upon the facts of the present case, it is found that the application which has been filed afresh by the respondent landlord under the provisions of Section 6 and 9 of the Act of 2001 is based on the ground of bona fide necessity which is a fresh cause of action and is distinct and different from the cause of action of default on which the earlier suit was filed and appeal arising out of which is pending before this Court. In these facts, the landlord was not required to procure any fresh permission from the Court for filing said petition.” In the matter of Auto Center (supra), the learned Single Judge of Principal Seat at Jodhpur, in paragraph 10 has observed as under:- “10. Apparently, the cause of action in filing the previous suit and subsequent suit are totally different, while the previous suit was filed under the Act of 1950, where the plaintiff-landlord was required to make out a ground for eviction as envisaged under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1950, however, with the repeal of the Act of 1950, and the fact that the Act of 2001 was not applied to Nokha, the proceedings as required by the Act were initiated, whereby the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated and the suits were filed seeking possession, thus the cause of action is totally different. Merely because the ultimate relief claimed in both the suits and the appeal pending before the first appellate court are same, it cannot be said that the subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs were not maintainable.” In the matter of Ramkishan & Ors. (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that ‘one suit would not operate as res-judicata if the issue in two suits is distinct and separate and not the same.’ The observations made in this judgment are as under:- “The question arising for consideration on the basis of the provisions of Section 10, C.P.C. is whether the matter in issue in the two suits is directly and substantially the same so as to attract the provisions of Section 10 CPC. As has been stated above while the relief claimed in both the suits is one for eviction, nonetheless the “matter in issue” in the earlier suit pertains as to whether the defendant tenant has committed default in the payment of rent under clause (a) of Sub-Section 1 of Sec. 13 of the Act 1950 and / or whether the defendant tenant has without the permission of plaintiff landlord sublet the premises or assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord, as provided in the clause ‘e’ thereof and further whether the defendant tenant has without reasonable cause not used the premises for the purpose for which it was let for a continuous period of 6 months immediately the preceding the filing of the suit as provided in clause- J of Section 13(1) of the Act of 1950. It is upon the satisfaction of the above grounds for which relevant issues have been framed which are the subject matter of the trial before the Court that the landlord plaintiff can obtain a decree for eviction of the tenant defendant. The matter in issue thus in the previous suit is whether the tenant is a defaulter, or he has sub-let the premises or whether there is non-user of the premises by the tenant. In the present suit which has been instituted under the provision of the Transfer Property Act 1882 after repeal of the Rent Control Act of 1950 the landlord plaintiff is only required to prove that he has validly terminated the tenancy by giving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as it is only a statutory tenancy. Thus in the subsequent suit which is the present suit the sole issue for consideration is whether the tenancy has been terminated validly as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It would thus be seen that the matter in issue in the two suits is distinct and separate and not the same. Thus in the subsequent suit which is the present suit the sole issue for consideration is whether the tenancy has been terminated validly as required by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It would thus be seen that the matter in issue in the two suits is distinct and separate and not the same. In that view of the matter since the issues involved are separate the cause of action is distinct the judgment and decree in one suit would not operate as res-judicata in the other suit & there would be no possibility of any conflicting decrees being passed, thus, the application under Section 10, C.P.C. does not satisfy the essential requirements of law for stay of the subsequent suit, in the present case. I am, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order, by which the application submitted by the defendant tenant petitioner under Section 10 CPC was rejected by the learned trial court does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 10. Since the cause of action and the grounds in the counter claim submitted by the respondent was the basis of termination of tenancy vide legal notice dated 21.01.2013, whereas the rent application filed by the respondent is based on separate cause of action and distinct grounds like material alterations by the petitioner in the rented premises, default in making payment of rent and the other grounds as provided in Section 9 of the Act of 2001. 11. Since the cause of action and the grounds of the counter claim and the rent application filed by the respondent are separate and distinct, no principle of res-judicata operates. The cause of action and the grounds of the counter claim and the rent application submitted by the respondent are separate and not the same. 12. Considering the overall facts of the case and the law cited by the counsels appearing for the respective parties, since the issue involved in the counter claim and rent application are separate and the cause of action is distinct, the judgment and decree in one suit would not operate as res-judicata in the other suit and there would be no possibility of any conflicting decrees being passed, thus, the application under Sections 10 and 151, C.P.C. does not satisfy the essential requirements of law for stay of the rent application in the present case. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering in the impugned order dated 06.03.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Beawar, District Ajmer passed on the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 and 151 CPC 13. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. Since the main petition has been dismissed, the stay application and pending applications, also stand dismissed.