R.S.A.No.295/2007 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 10.08.2010 + R.S.A.No. 295/2007 BRIJENDRA KUMAR & ORS. ………..Appellants Through: Mr.Jai Gupta, Advocate. Versus OM PRAKASH & ORS. ……….Respondents Through: Ms.Mugdha Pandey, Advocate for Respondents no.1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. The substantial questions of law are formulated on page B of appeal. Admittedly, there was a prior litigation inter se between the parties. Plaintiff Brijendra Kumar had filed an eviction petition against his tenant Om Prakash. On 3.3.2003, the court of the Additional Rent Controller had returned a finding that Om Prakash is not a tenant of the plaintiff Brijendra Kumar. This finding has since attained a finality. 2. The present suit was a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff Brijendra Kumar against Om Prakash seeking a permanent injunction against him restraining him from replacing the roof of the suit property or from putting any partition wall or making any addition or alteration in the suit property. The suit property is House no.T-147, Rajpura, Gurmandi, Delhi-7. A preliminary issue had been framed by the trial judge. This was on the applicability of the doctrine of resjudicata in view of the earlier R.S.A.No.295/2007 Page 2 of 4 judgment inter se between the same parties i.e. judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 3.3.2003 wherein the Additional Rent Controller had held that there was no relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. The eviction petition had been dismissed. 3. The trial judge vide its judgment dated 6.7.2005 returned a finding that the present suit is barred by resjudicata as the earlier court i.e. the court of the ARC on 3.3.2003 had returned a finding that there was no relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. The reliefs sought in the present suit were all premised on the pre-condition that there is a subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that is why the landlord is seeking an injunction against the tenant restraining him from replacing the roof or from raising any partition wall or any addition or alteration in the suit property. The court below had applied the doctrine as contained in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟). Further the court had also held that in view of Explanation VIII of Section 11 of the Code a issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction also operates as resjudicata in a subsequent suit even if the earlier court is not competent to try the subsequent suit. 4. These findings of the first court had been upheld by the judgment of Additional District Judge on 8.2.2007. 5. The questions of law formulated before this court are not tenable. The Rent Controller while deciding the eviction petition on 3.3.2003 had decided it on the merits of the case after taking evidence of the parties. It was not a dismissal on any technical ground. The issue before the first court i.e. court of the Rent R.S.A.No.295/2007 Page 3 of 4 Controller was as to whether the eviction petition was maintainable; a positive finding had been returned that Om Prakash was not a tenant of Brijendra Kumar. The prayers sought for in the present suit as already aforenoted cannot be granted until and unless it is established that Om Prakash is a tenant of Brijendra Kumar; only on this pre-condition, Brijendra Kumar can get a decree in the present suit. The first court i.e. the court of ARC on 3.3.2003 has already held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 6. Explanation VIII of Section 11 of the Code reads as follows: “Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.” It states that a judgment in a former suit will operate as resjudicata if the court which has decided the suit was competent to try the same notwithstanding that the former court did not have jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit. 7. In AIR 1983 Bom.488 Prabhakar Atmaram Kale vs. Bharat and Anr. it was held that the finding of a Rent Controller regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant will operate as resjudicata in a subsequent suit notwithstanding the fact that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit. 8. Judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant reported in AIR 1966 SC 1332 Sheodan Singh vs. Daryao Kunwar is inapplicable. Explanation VIII of Section 11 of the Code had been inserted into the Code only after the amendment of 1976; this judgment is prior in time. R.S.A.No.295/2007 Page 4 of 4 9. No question of law much less any substantial question of law has arisen. Appeal is dismissed in limine. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 10, 2010 rb