SRINIVASAN Vs. S S ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under the, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960, raises a point about res judicata in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of a nonresidential building in Ami under the tenancy of the respondent. In the year 1973, the petitioner moved the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he required the building for housing a business of his own. THE Rent Controller dismissed that petition on the preliminarypoint that prior to filing the petition no notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, had been issued to the tenant. In this view, the Rent Controller did not have to go into the merits of any of the grounds of eviction raised in the petition.

(3.) THE question is whether these two requisites are fulfilled in the present case. THE answer, to my mind, must be clearly in the negative. For, while the issue as to bona fide requirement for personal occupation was an issue both in the former proceeding and in the present proceeding that issue was not decided at all in the former proceeding. And while the disposal of the former proceeding was solely on the issue of notice to quit, no such issue at all figured between the parties in the present proceeding. Either way, therefore, section 19 does not apply to the present case. THE appellate authority was in error in summarily rejecting the present eviction petition as barred by res judicata under that provision.