P HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. T MURAHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed a suit O. S. No. 427/72in the Court below to recover the suit amount being the arrears of rent from May 1976 to November 1976 at the rate of Rs. 200/- i. e., Rs. 1, 200/-. The suit was dismissed on the ground that, in RCC. No. 1/77 laid by the petitioner under Section 10 (2) (i) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 15 of 1960, for short, "the Act", the finding recorded by the Rent Controller was that the respondent did not commit any default in payment of rent and therefore the said finding operated as res judicata by operation of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short, "the Code". Assailing the legality thereof the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri P. V. Seshaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuo-sly contended that though Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code posits that the finding of the Court of limited jurisdiction operates as res judicata, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller is not conclusive. The Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into the question. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal of limited jurisdiction is only confined to the matter in issue before the tribunal. Therefore the finding of the Court below that it operates as res judicata, is vitiatea by error of jurisdiction and warrants iaterference. In support thereof he relied on Debabrata Mukherjee vs. Kalyan 1 Amrltlal vs. Principal Rent Controller 2 and Jeeth Kam vs. P. Kondalamma 3

(3.) Mr. V. S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that for ejecting a statutory tenant under Section 10(2) (i) of the Act, there should be a finding that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and on the finding of committing wilful default in payment of rent only, the ejectment is to be ordered. The question whether the respondent has paid the rent for the six months was in issue in the rent control case. The finding of the Rent Controller was that the respondent did not commit any default which became final. Accordingly it operates as res judicata by operation of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of 'the Code. The Court below rightly held that the doctrine of res judicata applies to the facts in this case.