KANTA DEVI Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surinder Kumar brought a suit for permanent injunction for restraining Kanta Devi and Bhoop Kaur, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'landladies'), from dispossessing him from shop No. 3103-04, Bahadurgarh Road. Delhi. He claimed to be a tenant of the shop. He averred that the landladies in conspiracy with M/s. Dwarka Dass Somat Prashad (defendant No. 3) filed a petition for the plaintiff's eviction on the ground that defendant No. 3 was the tenant who had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the shop to the plaintiff without the consent in writing of the landladies. This petition was filed under cls. (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Controller allowed this petition holding that the plaintiff was not a tenant of the landladies and ordered his eviction. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged this order before the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court.

(2.) The defendants resisted the suit. One of the objections raised was that the suit was barred by principle of res judicata. The trial court framed an issue and tried it as a preliminary issue. It was decided against the defendants. This revision is directed against this decision.

(3.) Mr. M. R. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that Explanation VIII of S. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code bars the suit on principle of res judicata. He also, in the alternative, contends that the suit is barred on analogous principles of res judicata.