1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. S.A.NO.524 OF 2007 Maniklal Asaramji Gahalot (dead) through the L.Rs. Shyamsunder Maniklalji Gahalot and ten others. ..vs.. Vishalkumar Kesharimal Agrawal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's order. orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. Dated : 21st August 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.D.Chopde, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Respondent/plaintiff Vishalkumar Agrawal instituted a suit against the appellant Maniklal for ejectment, possession and arrears of rent. The respondent sought permission of the rent Controller for issuing a quit notice. Accordingly, a quit notice was issued terminating the tenancy from 31/8/1993. Rent at the rate of Rs.175/- was demanded. The suit was contested by the defendant. He denied that the rent of 2 Rs.175/- per month. He contended that the rent was only Rs.100/- per month. Further, he had contended that he was not the tenant of the suit premises but partnership firm. He, therefore, contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 3. The learned judge of the trial court found that rent was Rs.175/- per month. He also found that the notice terminating the tenancy was not proper and therefore, he refused the decree for ejectment. The defendant felt aggrieved by the determination of rent at Rs.175/- per month and therefore preferred an appeal. The appellate court found that suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary party and rent was Rs.100/- per month only. 4. The original plaintiff did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of the trial court refusing decree for ejectment nor he has preferred any cross- objection before this court though rent was determined at Rs.100/- per month. The appeal was accordingly disposed of by the learned district judge. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the first appellate court as well as 3 the trial court that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary party is not correct. 6. The submission cannot be accepted for the reasons that the rent Controller has held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between present plaintiff and the defendant i.e. appellant and the respondent. The finding of the rent Controller to that effect operates as res judicata and that finding is binding on the civil court. The learned judge of the court below has rightly held that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the second appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute