( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed a suit O. S. No. 427/72in the Court below to recover the suit amount being the arrears of rent from may 1976 to November 1976 at the rate of Rs. 200/- i. e. , Rs. 1, 200/ -. The suit was dismissed on the ground that, in RCC. No. 1/77 laid by the petitioner under Section 10 (2) (i) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act 15 of 1960, for short, "the Act", the finding recorded by the Rent Controller was that the respondent did not commit any default in payment of rent and therefore the said finding operated as res judicata by operation of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for short, "the Code". Assailing the legality thereof the present revision petition has been filed.

( 2 ) SRI P. V. Seshaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuo-sly contended that though Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code posits that the finding of the Court of limited jurisdiction operates as res judicata, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller is not conclusive. The Civil court has jurisdiction to go into the question. The jurisdiction of the tribunal of limited jurisdiction is only confined to the matter in issue before the tribunal. Therefore the finding of the Court below that it operates as res judicata, is vitiatea by error of jurisdiction and warrants iaterference. In support thereof he relied on Debabrata Mukherjee vs. Kalyan 1 Amrltlal vs. Principal Rent Controller 2 and Jeeth Kam vs. P. Kondalamma 3

( 3 ) MR. V. S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that for ejecting a statutory tenant under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act, there should be a finding that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and on the finding of committing wilful default in payment of rent only, the ejectment is to be ordered. The question whether the respondent has paid the rent for the six months was in issue in the rent control case. The finding of the Rent Controller was that the respondent did not commit any default which became final. Accordingly it operates as res judicata by operation of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code. The Court below rightly held that the doctrine of res judicata applies to the facts in this case.

( 4 ) IN view of the respective contentions the only question that arises for consideration is whether Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the code applies to the finding recorded by the Rent Controller under the Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 2 (iv) of the Act defines "controller" as any person not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar appointed by the Government to perform the functions of a Controller. In this case it is not in dispute that the Prl. District Munsif, is the Controller for the purpose of Section 2 (iv) of the Act to exercise the power conferred under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. The petitioner laid an application in RCC. No. 1/77 before the Controller for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises. Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act posits that the landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. Then the Controller has to satisfy himself that the tenant has not paid or tendered the amount due by him in respect of the building within the specified time for which the rent is payable. When the finding is that the tenant has committed any wilful default the landlord is entitled to a decree for ejectment against the tenant. Admittedly the finding recorded by the Rent Controller is that the respondent did not commit default in payment of rents from May 1976 to november 1976. That finding is liable to be assailed in an appeal under sec. 20 of the Act and further revision to this Cout under Section 22. The petitioner did not make avail of the appellate and revisionary remedies. Section 16 of the Act declares that decisions which have become final shall not be re-opened under sub-sections (2) an