. ! %07.05.2008 Present: i Mr.Nathu Ram for the petitioner. +C.M.I. · · · r 1. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgme and decrees and hence I am not going into the issue whether appellant can or cannot sue as an indigent person. 2. Admittedly, claiming to be the· owner of the suit property, and alleging that the respondent was a tenant under the appellant; a suit for ejectment of the respondent was filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller which was treated as an eviction petition. Claim on which ejectment was sought was that as owner, the appellant bona fide required the premises for residential use of the appellant. 3. As distinct from other grounds of ejectment where \- issue of ownership is irrelevant and the issue has to be decided on the basis of a landlord - tenant relationship, ejectment on ·!· ground of bona fide residential requirement as per Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act being related to the ownership of. the landlord, the Rent Controller decided the issue whether appellant w:as the owner of the subject property. 4. The reason thereof was a defence by the respondent that he was not a ten·ant under the appellant because it was he Page 1 of 2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified who was the owner of the subject property. 5. The ·Rent · Controller, after recording evidence, · returned a finding in favour of the respondent. The said finding has attained finality. 6. Appellant thereafter proceeded to file a civil suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration to ownership and a decree for ., possession. Declaration for was that the appellant was f !.! the owner of the subject property.· Ejectment was prayed for on the plea that possession of the respondent is unauthorized. 7. Both Courts below have returned a concurrent finding that the decision by the Rent Controller on the issue of title operates as res judicata. 8. · Indeed, by virtue of Explanation VIII to· Section 11 of .the Code of Civil Procedure, an issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction is not ' c. competent to try the subsequent su1t. 9. The C.M.I. No.1/2008 is accordingly dismissed in limine. 10. No costs. May 07, 2008 [p> IRA [D) [E [E [P' [N] iii\ IN! [D) (Q)(Gi jl D Page 2 of 2