ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar (for brevity “learned Rent Tribunal”) in application No.34/70/17 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant (for brevity “non- applicant”) under Sections 10 and 151 CPC read with Section 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity “the Act of 2001”), has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/applicant/landlord (for brevity, “applicant”) filed an original application against the non-applicant claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of the subject suit shop seeking eviction on the grounds of his reasonable and bonafide necessity and acquisition of suitable alternative accommodation by the non- applicant. During its pendency, the non-applicant filed an application, as aforesaid, seeking stay on the proceeding which has been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its order impugned dated 16.11.2024. 3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the non-applicant, inviting attention of this Court towards the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 211/2011: Madanlal and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Khandelwal and Ors., would submit that direction of the learned Court declaring the plaintiff as owner and landlord of the suit shop and entitled to receive the rent from him, has been stayed by this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 834/2017: Rameshwar Dayal and Ors. vs. Madan Lal and Ors. She further submits that however, this Court, vide its interim order dated 17.05.2018 passed in the aforesaid first appeal, directed him to deposit the rent during pendency of the appeal regularly in the trial Court in accordance with law whereupon, he is doing so regularly. She contends that since, it is yet to be decided in the first civil appeal as to who is his landlord, the application filed by him under Sections 10 and 151 CPC read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 deserved to be allowed. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 16.11.2024 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 16.11.2024 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. While dismissing the application, learned Rent Tribunal has observed that while, in the suit filed by late Madan Lal, he had prayed for declaring himself to be owner and landlord of the subject property, whereas, the original application has been filed under Sections 9 and 15 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction wherein, the main contesting defendant in the suit, i.e., Shri Rameshwar Dayal, is not a party. Recording a categorical finding that proceeding in the original application is not going to be influenced or would not get adversely affected by the subject matter of the suit, the application has been dismissed. After going through the material available on record, this Court is in respectful agreement with the findings so recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal. Indisputably, in the instant case, the core issue involved is as to whether the applicant is entitled for the recovery certificate on the grounds mentioned in the original application whereas, in the first appeal, the subject matter of dispute is as to rival claims of the two brothers/their legal heirs qua the title of the subject shop. 7. For ready reference, the issues framed in the application are reproduced as under: ^^1- D;k vthZnkj fookfnr fdjk;s’kqnk ifjlj dks Lo;a ds ikbZi o lSusVjh ds dkjksckj ds fy, ;qfDr ;qDr o ln~Hkkfod vko’;drk gksus ds vk/kkj ij izR;FkhZ ls [kkyh djok;k tkdj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- D;k izR;FkhZ }kjk Lo;a dh vko’;drk ds fy, fookfnr nqdku ds ikl gh LVs’ku jksM ij ,d nqdku dk IykWV ,&487 VªkaliksVZ uxj] vyoj esa rFkk LVs’ku jksM] vyoj ij ,d nqdku vftZr dj Lo;a dh vko’;drk gsrs ;qfDr;qDr o i;kZIr ifjlj vftZr dj fy;k gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\** 8. Further, to invite application of Section 10, it is necessary that the matter in issue in the subsequent suit should be directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or under whom they litigate. Undeniably, there is no such identity of issue in both the proceedings. Further, to invite application of Section 10, it is necessary that the matter in issue in the subsequent suit should be directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or under whom they litigate. Undeniably, there is no such identity of issue in both the proceedings. Moreover, this case fails to meet the fundamental object of Section 10, i.e., the decision in the previous suit would operate as “res judicata” in the subsequent suit. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no justification, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal in exercise of its judicious discretion based on sound legal principles. 10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to observe that the right of the applicant to execute the recovery certificate, if any, shall remain subject to decision in the S.B. Civil First Appeal No.834/2017. This writ petition is dismissed with aforementioned observations. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.