SELLAM IYENGAR Vs. PAVADUVEE VEERAPPA CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff agreed to grant a lease of a house site to the 1st defendant in July 1906. The latter sub-let portions of the site to the 2nd and 3rd defendants and directed them to pay the plaintiff Rs. 1-12-0 and 1-8-0 a month respectively. Owing to the failure of the 1st defendant to carry out the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 92 of 1911 on the file of the Manamadura District Munsif for the execution of the lease-deed and for arrears of rent. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties as they were in possession. One of the issues raised in that suit was, which defendant is liable for what portion of the rent?" The Munsif decreed that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in this suit, who wore defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the former suit, were liable to pay Rs. 1-12 and Rs. 1-8-0 respectively and passed a decree to that effect.

(2.) The present suit is solely for arrears of rent and has, therefore, been filed in the Small Cause Side of the Subordinate Court of Sivaganga. The Subordinate Judge held that the previous decision was not res judicata and passed a decree jointly and severally against all the defendants for the arrears.

(3.) The 2nd defendant has filed this revision petition against that judgment. I am unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge on the question of res judicata. Mr. Raju Aiyar contends that as under Section 16 of the Mofussil Small Cause Courts Act, Small Cause Courts alone are competent to entertain suits for arrears of rent, the previous decision by the District Munsif of Manamadura on the Regular Side is not res judicata. The District Munsif was competent to adjudicate on the claim for arrears, although he was not competent to entertain a suit brought to recover arrears alone.