Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vir Chand vs Hakam Chand And Anr. on 13 December, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1992)101PLR556
JUDGMENT G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge, whereby his suit for declaration that the orders dated April 4, 1973, February 26, 1975 and April 7, 1978 passed by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rent Case No. 2-2 of 1971, Appeal No. 82 of 1973 and Civil Revision No. 372 of 1975, respectively, were null and void and for possession of the shop in dispute from defendants No. 6 and 7 (respondents No. 1 and 2 in this appeal), was dismissed.
2. The facts: -
The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter the plaintiff) filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act, for brevity) against Kundan Lal, Babu Ram and Ram Gopal for their ejectment from the shop situated in Ward No. 4, Mandi Area of Municipal Committee, Gidderbaha, on the ground that the shop in dispute was leased out to Kundan Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per mensem ; that the tenant paid rent upto April 1, 1968 and thereafter committed default in payment of rent, that the tenant sub-let the shop to Babu Ram without consent in writing of the landlord ; that Babu Ram had further transferred the shop to Ram Gopal; that Kundan Lal controverted the plea of the plaintiff that he was a tenant on the disputed shop and that the question of sub-letting the shop to Babu Ram did not arise ; that Babu Ram in his written statement pleaded that Madan Lal remained in possession of the shop in question as tenant under the plaintiff from 1962 till September, 1969, and vacated the shop on September 20, 1969 and delivered vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff; that on September 21, 1969, the plaintiff, leased out the shop to Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal sons of Ram Gopal, defendants No. 6 and 7/respondents No. 1 and 2 in this appeal (hereinafter the contesting defendants) ; that Ram Gopal in his written statement took the stand that Madan Lal remained in possession of the shop from 1962 to September, 1969; that he delivered the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff on September 20, 1969 and that on September 21, 1969, the shop was leased out by the plaintiff to the contesting defendants-Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal.
3. The Rent Controller found that the shop in dispute was never let out to Kundan Lal, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the plaintiff and Kundan Lal and that the contesting defendants were direct tenants under the plaintiff. The Rent Controller vide his order dated April 4, 1973, dismissed the eviction application.
4. The plaintiff assailed the order of the Rent Controller in appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act. The Appellate Authority by its order dated February 26, 1975 affirmed the order of the Rent Controller and held that the plaintiff had let out the shop to Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal, the contesting defendants and that from the account books produced by firm M/s Hakam Rai Mohinder Pal it stood established that they had been paying rent to the plaintiff directly. The order of the Appellate Authority, was affirmed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 372 of 1975 decided on April 7, 1978.
5. The correctness of the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and by a learned Single Judge of this Court was challenged by the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 373 of 1981 an the ground that these were based on mis-reading of the evidence an record and the finding that Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal were direct tenants under the plaintiff was based upon inadmissible evidence.
6. In the suit, the learned Judge of this Court who decided the revision petition, the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller were arrayed as defendants No. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 3 Shri Dina Nath Sharma, who had decided the eviction application as Rent Controller. He took a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable against him and also against defendants No. 1 and 2 as they had acted judicially while delivering their respective judgments and were not liable to be sued in any civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act(5 of 1950) and that the allegations made against the judicial officers were malicious, contemptuous calling upon initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The defendant/tenants contested the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by time and that the plaintiff could not reagitate the points which already stood adjudicated upon in the earlier proceedings.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on August 14,1981:-
(1) Whether the judgments dated 7.4.1978, 26.2.1975 and 4.4.1973 are illegal, and malafide and void? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the shop in dispute ? OPP.
(3) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata ?
(4) Whether this Court has jurisdiction ? OPP.
(5) Whether the suit is maintainable ? OPP.
(6) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP.
(7) Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP.
(8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit ?
Issue No. 8 was recast on September 14, 1981 and it reads thus:-
Whether the defendants 6 and 7 are the tenants under the plaintiff and the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit? OPD.
(9) Relief.
8. The trial Judge answered issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and held that the orders dated April 4, 1973, February 26, 1975 and April 7, 1978, passed by the Rent Controller, Gidderbaha, the Appellate Authority, Faridkot and a learned Judge of this Court in Rent Case No. 2-2 of 1971, Appeal No. 82 of 1973 and Civil Revision No. 372 of 1975, respectively were legal and valid; issues No. 2 and 8 were disposed of together and it was held that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit for possession and that he was not entitled to recover possession from the contesting defendants after having failed to get their eviction in proceedings under Section 13 of the Act ; issue No. 3 was not pressed; issue No. 4 was answered against the plaintiff and it was held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ; issue No. 5 was decided against the plaintiff in view of the finding recorded under issues No. 2 and 8 ; under issue No. 6. it was held that Sub Judge 1st Class, Gidderbaha by his order dated November 16, 1983, directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the market value of the suit property, i. e. Rs. 80,000/-, upto December 3, 1983 ; that this order was unsucessfully challenged in this Court in Civil Revision No 324 of 1983 and the same was dismissed on December 25, 1983 ; and that the order of the High Court passed in the revision petition was unsuccessfully challenged before the apex Court by way of special leave petition, which was dismissed in limine. The request of the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in Court-fee was rejected by the trial Judge vide order dated March 18, 1985, but this Court vide order dated August 19, 1985 passed in Civil Revision No. 1137 of 1985 directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated March 18, 1985, allowed the plaintiff to make up the deficiency in Court fee within six weeks from the date of the order ; issue No. 7 was decided against the plaintiff and it was held that the suit was filed beyond limitation. On ultimate analysis, the suit was dismissed.
9. The first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated December 4, 1987, affirmed the conclusion of the trial Judge. It also took note of the fact that in another eviction application filed against the contesting defendant-tenants, the plaintiff had admitted that they were his tenants and that the order in the said eviction application operates as estoppel by conduct.
10. In this second appeal, the plaintiff submitted that the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority and this Court while affirming the order of the Rent Controller and of the Appellate Authority in Civil Revision No. 372 of 1975 took into consideration inadmissible evidence. He could not point out any evidence which was not considered, full opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, but he could not persuade me that the orders of the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and this Court suffered from any infirmity. Apart from this, Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in terms inapplicable to a decision under the Act, but the principle underlying it is expressed in the maxim, ''interest rei publicae ut sit finish litium" which is founded on the sound public policy is applicable. The principle of res judicata is of universal application. It objects is to prevent harassment of individuals whose rights have been determined by a proper tribunal on a previous occasion. Where a matter was put into issue on a previous occasion between two parties and decided that decision must bar any further enquiry into the same matter. The authorities under the Act had, on appreciation of evidence, arrived at a firm finding that the contesting defendants were direct tenants under the plaintiff on the disputed shop. Even if a particular piece of evidence was misconstrued or ignored or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration to arrive at a finding by the authority competent to decide the lis, the party aggrieved against the same could only assail it before the appellate forum prescribed under the Act. The order of the tribunal constituted under the special Act will not be rendered void ab initio even if it had ignored some evidence while delivering the judgment. The order may be wrong in law or on facts, but it will not be rendered void. The conclusion arrived at by the first appellate Court that the orders of the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and of this Court in civil revision are legal and valid calls for no interference. The appeal is devoid of merits.
11. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The appellant is not represented by any counsel. The Registry is, therefore, directed to intimate the appellant about the result of this appeal immediately.