Hyath Basha vs Tajan Bi on 16 December, 1982
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.535 of 2016 in RCOP No.1129 of 2013, the grounds raised in RCA SR No.2781 of 2017 and the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner extensively referred to the materials in the typedset of papers and submitted that the ground in the earlier RCOPs & present RCOP and the parties are one and the same and the earlier RCOP has attained finality. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Appellate Authority has erroneously held that the order of the learned Rent Controller in MP No.535 of 2016 did not decide the rights of the parties. On the other hand, the learned Appellate Authority ought to have seen that had the Rent Controller allowed the petition, the right of the petitioner would have been decided in his favour in the RCOP itself. In view of the order passed in M.P No.535 of 2016, the Rent Controller cannot take a different view with regard to resjudicata in the main RCOP. The courts below erred in relying on the judgment reported in 2015 (4) CTC 696 [Rajendran v. Akkammal] and ought to have followed the judgment in 1996 LW 85 [Hyath Basha v. Tajan Bi]. This Court, not considered the earlier judgment reported in 1996 LW 85 cited above and the Appellate Authority ought to have followed the earlier judgment. The learned Appellate Authority has not given any reasons as to why the order passed by the learned Rent Controller did not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgment -