(1.) The question which arises for decision in this Revision Application is whether a finding recorded by Rent Controller in proceedings under C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), to the effect that the tenant is not in arrears of rent operates as res judicata in a civil suit subsequently filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovering rent for the same period. This question arises in the following circumstances.
(2.) The non-applicant owns a room which is the subject matter of this litigation. He had let it out to the applicant at the monthly rental of Rs. 10/-. In 1970 the non-applicant made an application to the Rent Controller under the provisions of Clause 13 (3) (i) and (ii) of the Order for permission to serve a notice on the applicant determining his lease on the ground that the applicant was in arrears of rent for an aggregate period of three months and that he was habitually in arrears of rent It appears in this application non-applicant alleged that the applicant had paid the rent till end of August 1967 and in September 1967 non- applicant took a loan of Rs. 100/-from the applicant and it was agreed that the interest on this loan should be Rs. 30/-and that the amount of principal and interest should be appropriated towards the rent for 13 months and thus according to non-applicant he received the rent up to the end of September 1968. Non-applicant, therefore, contended in the said application that the applicant had failed to pay rent from Oct. 1968 till February 1970 and thus he was in arrears of rent for more than three months and he was also a habitual defaulter.
(3.) On the other hand, the applicant contended before the Rent Controller that in fact non-applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 500/-from him and it was agreed that this amount would not carry any interest and the applicant would not pay any rent of the room till the non-applicant repaid the said amount of Rs. 500/. The applicant alleged that non-applicant had not repaid the said loan of Rs. 500/- and hence, he was not entitled to recover the rent under the above said agreement. Thus the applicant submitted before the Rent Controller that he did not owe anything to non-applicant by way of rent for the period, for which the said proceedings had been started. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence adduced by the parties found that the agreement set up by the applicant had been established and consequently, he held that the applicant could not be said to be in arrears for more than three months and was also not habitual defaulter, as alleged by non-applicant. The non-applicant preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector under the provisions of the said Order. However, the latter confirmed the findings and order passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the applicant and dismissed the appeal. The Rent Controller passed his order on 20-5-1970 and the Resident Deputy Collector passed his order on 8-1-1971.