LAL CHAND Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the appellant � defendant- tenant Lal Chand being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd.10.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge, Sangaria in Civil Appeal No.4/2007 � Lal Chand V/s Manoj Kumar and anr. whereby the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant � tenant Lal Chand and affirmed the judgment and decree dtd.9.1.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sangaria in civil Suit No.101/2001� Poonam Chand V/s Lal Chand whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff Poonam Chand for eviction on various grounds under Section 13 of the Rent Control Act, 1950 in respect of suit premises, a room, situated at Ward No.14, Sangaria..

(2.) THE learned counsel for the defendant � appellant Mr. Siddharth Tatia for Mr. V.K. Mathur urged that in the previous suit filed for eviction, namely, civil suit No.21/1985, the trial Court had dismissed the suit on 23.1.1993. However, the appellate Court in Appeal No.5/1993 � Poonam Chand V/s Lal Chand allowed the appeal of the landlord and while affirming the findings of the trial Court on vaious grounds found that there was first default committed by the tenant under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, the trial Court giving benefit of first default under Section 13(6) of the Act refused to grant eviction decree. He, therefore, submitted that the parties were bound by the principles of Res Judicata and the decree of eviction on same grounds could not be given in favour of the respondents � plaintiffs � landlords in subsequent suit i.e. the presnet suit No.101/2002. He also submitted that in absence of first default being proved by the plaintiffs, the decree could not be granted inter alia on the ground of second default committed by the defendant -tenant. He, therefore, submitted that substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal requiring consideration by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record of the case.