Kuldip Parkash Jain and others vs Prem Chand

P.C. Pandit, J.—The dispute, in the instant case, relates to a house, situate in Karnal. In March 1965, Kuldip Parkash and two others brought a suit for ejectment against Prem Chand, who was occupying the said house as a tenant. After trial, an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller in April 1966. This order was maintained by the Appellate Authority in April 1969. It is said that Prem Chand''s revision against the order of the Apellate Authority was also dismissed in limine by this Court. Thereafter, in June 1969, he brought a suit against Kuldip Parkash and two others for a declaration that he was the owner of the said house and by way of consequential relief he also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the said house.

This suit was contested by the defendants and a number of issues were framed. One of the issues was whether the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata as alleged in the written statement.

The defendants made an application under Order 14, rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the said issue be tried as a preliminary one.

This application was contested by the plaintiff and later rejected by the trial. Judge by means of his order dated 4th February, 1972, Against that decision, the defendants have come here in revision.

While rejecting the said application, the trial Judge observed that the "general principal is that the Rent Controller is a Tribunal of summary jurisdiction and his decree cannot operate as res judicata.'''' He further observed that this was a very old case and was being unnecessarily prolonged by the defendants.

The plaintiff is claiming title to the property indispute on the ground of adverse possession. The question of title has, undoubtedly, to be tried by the Civil Court. Indisputably, the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to determine whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He is not concerned with the title of the demised premises. Obviously, therefore, his decision that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties cannot operate as res judicata, so far as the question of title is concerned, because it is only a Civil Court, which, under the law, can determine that matter. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in observing that the decision of the Rent Controller could not operate as res judicata so far as the present litigation was concerned. Besides, the plaintiff may like to lead evidence on the question of title and if that has to be done, it is only fair that evidence be led on all the issues together and the above-mentioned issue be not tried as a preliminary one, as it may not be possible to determine the same without taking evidence. I, therefore, dechne to interfere with the impugned order.

The result is that this revision petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.