SHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against concurrent judgments and orders passed by the. Prescribed Authority and the learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun, directing the eviction of the petitioner from premises no. 87, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, known as "Inverness".

(2.) THESE are the essential facts. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the owner and landlord of the premises mentioned above, instituted a suit no. 250 of 1967 in the court of the learned Munsif, Dehradun, on 5-6-67 against B. L. Mehra, the tenant of the premises and the father of the present petitioner. The relief claimed in the suit was for ejectment as well as for Rs. 226.45 as arrears of rent and mesne profits pendente lite and future. The suit was filed on the assertion that B. L. Mehra was a tenant from month to month at a rental of Rs. 112/- per mensum. The property was required by the plaintiff for the establishment of the office of the Forest Department at Dehradun. Consequently a legal notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant was served on the latter on 4-4-1966. B. L. Mehra having failed to comply with that notice the suit had to be instituted for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) IT is the validity of these orders which are the subject of challenge in this petition. The first point urged in support of the petition was that the order of transfer of the suit by the learned Munsif to the Prescribed Authority was unsustainable in law. IT is, however, not necessary to elaborate the grounds upon which the order of transfer was sought to be assailed by the learned counsel in view of the fact that B. L. Mehra had challenged this very order of transfer by way of a writ petition in this Court, being writ petition no. 3669 of 1973, and this Court dismissed the petition. IT is settled law that the principle of res judicata is equally applicable as between the two stages of the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court, having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will now allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings.-See Satyadhan v. Smt. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941 Para 8. Their Lordships observed that this principle is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. In view of this settled legal position it is not competent to the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order of transfer of the civil suit in terms of subsection (2) of Section 20 of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.