(1.) The contentions raised for sustaining this appeal under S.100 of the C P.C are two-fold.
(2.) In the first instance it is urged that the order dated the 9th Septemter, 1966 psssed by the Additional Rent Controller under S.45 of Act 59 of 1958 was operative as res-judicata and it was not open to the civil courts to determine that the appellant was not a tenant of respondent No. 1.
(3.) The second contention is that the learned Additional, District Judge whose decision dated the 18th May, 1967 is sought to be impugned through this appeal had not considered valuable documentary evidence comprised in Exhibits D/2, D/3, D/8 and D/9 and had not dealt with the evidence produced by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 to this appeal). It is urged that for that reason also the impugned decision is contrary to law.