RAMCHANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. SANTHINATH CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLOTS Nos. 217 and 218, having an area of 50 and 90 decimals respectively are situated in holding No. 1147 in Khata No. 56 in Mouza Balisahi within the municipal limits of Puri town. A residential house located thereon is the subject-matter of this litigation. Opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 150 of 1960 in the Court of the Munsif, Puri, for eviction of the petitioner on the allegation that he was the owner of the disputed house and that the petitioner (defendant in the suit) had been inducted as a tenant therein and was also liable to pay arrears of the rent to the tune of Rs. 152/- and damages for use and occupation. The petitioner took the defence that he had purchased one-fourth interest of the co-sharer in the disputed plots and the room in question on 7-11-58. He also denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and asserted that he was not liable to pay rent. The case was ultimately tried by the Additional Munsif, Puri. Issues 3 to 5 were the main issues in the suit. They were : Issue No. 3 : Is the defendant a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit house as alleged? Issue No. 4 : Is the plaintiff entitled to arrears of rent and damages as claimed? Issue No. 5 : Is the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit land from the defendant? In the judgment passed on October 12, 1961 (Annexure A) the learned Munsif held that the plaintiff failed to establish his title and possession within twelve years of the suit and also failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioner. He accordingly dismissed the suit for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent. An appeal carried by opposite party No. 1 (Plaintiff) was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Puri (see Annexure B), on 26-8-63. Opposite party No. 1 thereafter filed an application under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he had fallen into arrears of rent. The House Rent Controller, by his order dated 26-12-64 (Annexure C) dismissed the application holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. In appeal, the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) Puri, remanded the case to the House Rent Controller holding that there was clear documentary evidence to show that opposite party No. 1 was the owner of the disputed room and that the petitioner was a tenant under him and that there was relationship of landlord and tenant (Annexure D). Against this order the writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR. Patnaik on behalf of the petitioner contends that the judgment of the civil court that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 operates as res judicata and the impugned order is contrary to law.