B. Yamuna Bai vs N. Rangaswamy

T. Ramaprasada. Rao, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed though not on the ground on which the lower Court based its conclusion, but on the ground that the petitioner-landlady is not entitled to possession of the buildings which are two rooms in this case on the specific legal injunction sanctioned by the principle laid down in Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is common ground that the petitioner sought for the eviction of the respondent from the very same building on the ground that she wanted to demolish and reconstruct the same. This was early in 1964. That application was dismissed. She renewed the request under the present application filed in 1974 on the very same ground, namely demolition and reconstruction. She wanted the tenant to vacate so that she could demolish, reconstruct and occupy the same. The lower court dismissed the application on the ground that it lacked bona fides. I am not inclined to canvass the correctness of this view as this Court has consistently taken the position that orders for eviction u/s 14(1) (b) of the Act when asked for by a landlord, should be granted provided prima facie he satisfied the requirements of the section and the request of the landlord cannot be defeated on extraneous considerations and grounds. But the more formidable contention of Mr. Ganapathi Subramania Iyer is that by reason of the admitted dismissal of an application under similar circumstances and under the same provision of law, the present application for the same relief under the similar circumstances and yet again under the similar provision of law is barred u/s 19 of the Act. Mr. Ramalingam, however, would say that circumstances have changed and that therefore the landlady would be entitled to ask for such an eviction. I am unable to agree

Section 19 is important and it reads thus:

Section 19.-- Any application u/s 3-A or Section 12, and any application under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (3-A) of Section 10 or under sections 14, 15 or 16, shall be summarily rejected by the Authorised Officer or the Controller, as the case may be, if such application raises between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, substantially the same issues as have been finally decided or as purport (to have been finally decided, in a former proceeding

(i) under this Act, or

(ii) under any other law from time to time in force before the date of the commencement of this Act and relating to matters dealt with in this Act.

It is clear that if any order has been passed u/s 14 of the Act between the same parties, then the same issue which has been finally decided cannot be raised again in a latterly instituted action on the ground that circumstances have allegedly changed. The purport of the request on the first occasion and in the later occasion was the same. That was to evict the tenant for the purpose of demolishing the building and reconstructing the same. These essential pre-requisites for approaching the Rent Controller for an order could not have changed. They remained the same. In such circumstances only Section 19 operates and the well known principle of res judicata prevents the landlord or the landlady as the case may be from pursuing, but at a belated stage, an application for the grant of a similar relief. It is this that is prevented by law u/s 19 of the Act. 1 uphold the objection of the respondent that the landlady did not have the right to present the application u/s 14 (1) (b) of the Act. I make it clear that this Court is not approving the order of the Court below in so far as the dismissal of the application on merits and the reasons given by it for coming to the said conclusion. However, on the ground that the landlady could not maintain such an application u/s 19 of the Act, the rent control petition has to be dismissed. Hence the civil revision petition fails and it is therefore dismissed . There will be no order as to costs.