The general principle of res judicata is applicable to a finding of an authority or tribunal exercising judicial function, and if the same controversy on which finding is given, is raised in a subsequent suit, the decision of that controversy in that suit would be barred on the general principle of res judicata.

Headnote:
RES JUDICATA - RENT CONTROL - FINDING OF RENT CONTROLLER - CIVIL SUIT FOR RENT - APPLICABILITY OF RES JUDICATA - GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA - DECISION OF RENT CONTROLLER AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR - JUDICIAL FUNCTION - FINALITY OF DECISION - DISTINCTION BETWEEN DECISION AND FINDING - APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RENT CONTROLLER - CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION OF RES JUDICATA - IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND SUBJECT MATTER - FULL CONTEST AND OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE CASE - COMPETENCE OF AUTHORITY TO DECIDE - AGREEMENT BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT - NON-PAYMENT OF RENT TILL LOAN REPAID - FINDING OF RENT CONTROLLER - OPERATES AS RES JUDICATA IN CIVIL SUIT FOR RENT - APPLICABILITY OF AGREEMENT TO SUBSEQUENT PERIOD - BURDEN OF PROOF ON LANDLORD TO PROVE REPAYMENT OF LOAN.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a tenant, was sued by the non-applicant, the landlord, for arrears of rent for a certain period. The applicant had previously filed an application before the Rent Controller under the C. P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, alleging that he was not in arrears of rent and that he had an agreement with the non-applicant that he would not pay rent until a loan he had given to the non-applicant was repaid. The Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector, on appeal, found in favor of the applicant and held that there was an agreement between the parties that the applicant would not pay rent until the loan was repaid. The non-applicant then filed a civil suit for arrears of rent, and the applicant raised the defense of res judicata, arguing that the finding of the Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector operated as res judicata and barred the civil court from considering the issue of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the finding of the Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector operated as res judicata and barred the civil court from considering the issue of the agreement. The court found that all the conditions for the application of the general principle of res judicata were satisfied, namely, that the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the civil court were between the same parties, that the controversy between the parties was identical, that the matter had been fully contested by both parties, and that the Rent Controller was competent to decide the issue. The court also held that the agreement between the parties, as found by the Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector, was applicable to the period for which the non-applicant was claiming rent in the civil suit, and that the non-applicant had not proved that he had repaid the loan to the applicant.
Issues: 1. Whether the finding of the Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector operated as res judicata and barred the civil court from considering the issue of the agreement between the parties. 2. Whether the agreement between the parties, as found by the Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector, was applicable to the period for which the non-applicant was claiming rent in the civil suit. 3. Whether the non-applicant had proved that he had repaid the loan to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The general principle of res judicata is applicable to a finding of an authority or tribunal exercising judicial function, and if the same controversy on which finding is given, is raised in a subsequent suit, the decision of that controversy in that suit would be barred on the general principle of res judicata. 2. The Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector, in the proceedings under the C. P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, exercised judicial functions and were legal tribunals. 3. The finding of the Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector that there was an agreement between the parties that the applicant would not pay rent until the loan was repaid was a final decision and operated as res judicata in the civil suit for arrears of rent. 4. The agreement between the parties, as found by the Rent Controller and the Deputy Collector, was applicable to the period for which the non-applicant was claiming rent in the civil suit, and the non-applicant had not proved that he had repaid the loan to the applicant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application, set aside the decree passed by the appellate court, and restored the decree passed by the trial court. The non-applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the applicant of the appeal as well as the revision application.

JUDGMENT - GINWALA A.A., J.: - The question which arises for decision in this Revision Application is whether a finding recorded by Rent Controller in proceedings under C. P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949(herein-after referred to as the Order) to the effect that the tenant is not in arrears of rent operates as res judicata in a civil suit subsequently filed by the landlord against the tenant for recovering rent for the same period. This question arises in the following circumstances.

2. The non-applicant owns a room which is the subject matter of this litigation. He had let it out to the applicant at the monthly rental of Rs. 10. In 1970 the non-applicant made an application to the Rent Controller under the provisions of clause 13(3), (i) and(ii) of the Order for permission to serve a notice on the applicant determining his lease on the ground that the applicant was in arrears of rent for an aggregate period of three months and that he was habitually in arrears of rent. It appears in this application non-applicant alleged that the applicant had paid the rent till end of August 1967 and in September 1967 non-applicant took a loan of Rs. 100 from the applicant and it was agreed that the interest on this loan should be Rs. 30 and that the amount of principal and interest should be appropriated towards the rent for 13 months and thus according to non-applicant, he received the rent upto the end of September 1968. Non-applicant, therefore, contended in the said application that the applicant had failed to pay rent from October 1968 till February 1970 and thus he was in arrears of rent for more than three months and he was also a habitual defaulter.

3. On the other hand, the applicant contended before the Rent Controller that in fact non-applicant had taken a loan of Rs. 500 from him and it was agreed that this amount would not carry any interest and the applicant would not pay any rent of the room till the non-applicant repaid the said amount of Rs. 500. The applicant alleged that non-applicant had not repaid the said loan of Rs. 500 and hence, he was not entitled to recover the rent under the above said agreement. Thus the applicant submitted before the Rent Controller that he did not owe anything to non-applicant by way of rent for the period, for which the said proceedings had been started. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence adduced by the parties f5und that the agreement set up by the applicant had been established and consequently, he held that the applicant could not be said to be in arrears for more than three months and was also not habitual defaulter, as alleged by non-applicant. The non-applicant preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector under the provisions of the said Order. However, the latter confirmed the findings and order passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the applicant and dismissed the appeal. The Rent Controller passed his order on 20-5-1970 and the Resident Deputy Collector passed his order on 6-1-1971.

4. Thereafter on 3-11-1971 non-applicant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Pusad against the applicant for recovering the rent of Rs. 360 for the period from October 1968 to October 1971. In the plaint non-applicant reiterated the same averments which he had made before the Rent Controller. In short, he said that he had received the rent upto the end of September, 1967. He had taken the loan from the appellant in September, 1967 and had agreed to pay interest of Rs. 30 thereon and this amount of principal and interest was appropriated towards the rent for 13 months. It appears that in the plaint non-applicant had referred to the plea taken by the applicant before the Rent Controller with regard to the alleged loan of Rs. 500 and non-payment of rent on his part till non-applicant returned this amount. Non-applicant maintained in the plaint that the transaction which was sought to be set up by the applicant before the Rent Cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1979 Supreme(Bom) 58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(Nagpur BENCH)Ginwala A.A., J.Laxman Vithal Rewankar….Petitioner.VersusRajaram Narayan Pohurkar….Respondents.Civil Revn. Appln. No. 104 of 1977, decided on 9-3-1979.Advocates appeared:A.M. Bapat, for applicantNo appearance for opponent.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Nagpur BENCH)
Ginwala A.A., J.
Laxman Vithal Rewankar….Petitioner.
Versus
Rajaram Narayan Pohurkar….Respondents.
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 104 of 1977, decided on 9-3-1979.
Advocates appeared:
A.M. Bapat, for applicant
No appearance for opponent.