BRAHM PRAKASH Vs. CHANDO DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23.07.2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, dismissing his application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 11 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming inter alia that the petition preferred by the respondents/landlords (petitioners in the court below) under the provision of Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'), was barred by the principles of res judicata as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stood decided, vide order dated 27.01.1998 passed in an earlier petition filed by Late Sh. Samey Singh, the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of the remaining respondents, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. In the year 1996, the predecessor -in -interest of the respondents, Shri Samey Singh filed an eviction petition against the petitioner herein (respondent therein) under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, registered as E.P.No. 149/1996, stating inter alia that he was in arrears of rent in respect of premises bearing No.163(new)/143(old) situated in village Dhaka, Delhi, from 01.03.1993, till the date of issuance of notice, i.e., till 04.03.1996. The aforesaid petition was contested by the petitioner, who filed his reply in which he disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As a result, Sh. Samey Singh was called upon to adduce evidence to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties for which purpose, he was granted numerous opportunities. Last opportunity was granted to him to adduce evidence, on 09.09.1997 and again on 01.11.1997. Finally, the following order dated 27.01.1998 came to be passed by the Rent Controller:

(3.) APART from taking a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the eviction petition in the written statement, the petitioner also filed an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 read with Sections 11 and 151 CPC, stating inter alia that the eviction petition was barred by the principles of res judicata and the same was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was contested by the respondents, who filed their reply. In the reply, while it was not denied that an order dated 27.01.1998 was passed by the Rent Controller in the first eviction petition, but it was denied that their eviction petition was liable to be dismissed as being barred by the principles of res judicata.