R K ANEJA Vs. NAGENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the defendant is directed against the order dated 23-8-1982 passed by the learned trial Judge whereby his application under Order 37 Rule 3(5) of the Civil Procedure Code ., for leave to defend was, dismissed.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of rent against the petitioner. The suit was filed under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code . The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend on the ground that the original agreement between the parties came to an end in June, 1978 and in place thereof a new and fresh agreement was entered into between the parties. It was pleaded that according to the new agreement some structural job was to bedone in the accommodation which was got done at the expense of the petitioner, and thereby the petitioner incurred a total expense of Rs. 8075. This amount was to be deducted from the rent payable to the respondent and as such the respondent was not entitled to amount claimed. On consideration <PG>290</PG> of the entire matter, the application, for leave to defend, was dismissed and the suit was decreed.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that be had made outtriable issue and as such the learned trial Judge should have granted leave to defend the suit. It is not disputed that a similar suit was filed by the respondent tor recovery of rent for the earlier period. In that case, leave to defend was refused but on a petition to this court the leave, prayed for, was granted. The learned counsel for the respondent has made a statement at the bar that after the leave had been granted the suit has been decreed and no appeal against the said decree has been filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, obviously, the finding in that suit would operate as res judicata, because the pleas were the same. I have also been taken through the proceedings between the parties before the Rent Courts. In that case also the plea of the petitioner was that he was entitled to adjustment of about Rs. 10,000 which he had spent on additional constructions etc. The plea was negatived by the Rent Controller as also by the Rent Control Tribunal. That judgment stands upheld right till the Supreme Court. In the circumstances, no triable issue subsists.