RUKHMINIBAI Vs. LALITAPRASAD DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlady is challenging the Order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector (for short 'the R.D.C.') dated 17.2.1986, wherein it has been held that the application filed by the petitioner-landlady under clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order') is res judicata.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed the application under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order in the year 1978 for terminating the tenancy of the respondent-tenant on various counts. This application for termination of tenancy came to be rejected in the year 1980 on the ground that no adequate evidence was putforth by the petitioner in respect of her contention that she requires the suit premises for personal occupation. The petitioner did not challenge the said order in appeal. But, thereafter, again filed an application on 13.1.1981 under clause 13(3)(i),(ii), (vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order. The learned Rent Controller, by his Order dated 11.9.1981 upheld the contention raised by the petitioner and granted permission to terminate the tenancy of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has established the bonafide need by examining herself and her son who is newly married. The Rent Controller has also come to the conclusion that the premises which are in occupation of the petitioner consist of only two rooms while there are 11 members in the family of the petitioner. One of her sons is duly married whose marriage invitation card is also placed on record and the marriage of the second son is also fixed. Therefore, she claimed that the house purchased in the year 1976 by her husband was required by her for her bonafide occupation. Considering the need of the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller granted the permission for terminating the tenancy of the respondent under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. This Order came to be challenged by the respondent tenant in appeal before the R.D.C. who, by his Order dated 17.2.1986, has come to the conclusion that the previous application was filed in the year 1978 which came to be decided in February, 1980. The said application was filed by the petitioner under the same provisions of the Rent Control Order. As such, he has come to the conclusion that the Order passed earlier by the Rent Controller, which was not challenged by the petitioner, has become res judicata and no fresh application on the same grounds can be entertained. This is the Order under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) I have gone through the Orders passed by the Courts below. The learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion after going through the evidence of the parties. Considering the need of the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller granted permission under clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order for terminating the tenancy of the respondent. Mr. Mehadia contended that this Order was reversed by the appellate Court without considering the facts of the case and has merely relied upon that the previous application was rejected which was based on the same set of facts. He contended that the circumstances which were prevalent in the year 1978 were not in existence in the year 1980-81. As such, the application filed in the year 1981 for termination of tenancy was under changed circumstances. He has also relied upon the evidence of the petitioner-landlady who has specifically stated that she needs the premises for the reason that her son has been married and the marriage of the second son has been fixed. These facts have not been disputed by the respondent-tenant. Even in the cross-examination of the petitioner, nothing has been brought on in the cross-examination of the petitioner, nothing has been brought on record which is adverse to the petitioner-landlady. Therefore, Mr. Mehadia claimed that the Order passed by the learned appellate Court is liable to be quashed.