SIDDAREDDY CHENCHU RAMI REDDY Vs. ALAGANADHASWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant against whom a decree for rent has been granted by the learned District Munsif of Gudur, is the petitioner in this revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decision of the Tahsildar in T.A. No. 14 of 1964. In a petition for eviction filed under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent the Tahsildar held that no rent was due from the tenant. The rent claimed in the present suit is for the very period for which the Tahsildar decided that no rent was due. Mr. Ramana Reddy contends that the question whether rent was due from the tenant or not was the only question which fell for the decision of the Tahsildar in the proceeding for eviction, a relief which the Tahsildar alone could give. It is contended that a necessary finding by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction operates as res judicata and precludes the civil Court from going into the question.

(2.) Mr. Narasimharao, for the respondent, submits that section 11, Civil Procedure Code, does not in terms apply and where it does not apply the general principles of res judicata also cannot be invoked. He relies on the case of Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 633.

(3.) In any case he submits that the question whether rent was due or not was not a question within the exclusive competence of the Tahsildar and any decision of the Tahsildar on that question could only be incidental to the question whether the tenant should be evicted or not and hence such an incidental adjudication cannot oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the question.