The principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the consequential order under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Sahidullah Munshi, J.

This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order no.18 dated 14th January, 2015, passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.27 of 2013. By the order impugned the learned Judge has struck off the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession in respect of the suit premises under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

2. The present revisional application has been filed by the defendant/tenant and has prayed for setting aside the order impugned, inter alia, on the grounds -

1. That the learned Court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the petition under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, striking out the defence against delivery of possession in respect of the suit premises.

2. That the order passed under Section 7(2) of the said Act, was without jurisdiction being passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta.

3. It is on record that an order was passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court on 27th November, 2013, dismissing defendant/tenant's application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, whereby the defendant prayed before the Court to decide the arrear rent due and payable by the defendant/tenant and to permit him to deposit the same together with statutory interest in easy instalments. Assailing the order dated 27th November, 2013, the defendant/tenant filed a revisional application before this Hon'ble Court being C.O. No.921 of 2014.

4. The said revisional application was dismissed by an order dated 24th November, 2014 by this Hon'ble Court.

5. The defendant also questioned the jurisdiction of the Court in passing the order on 27th November, 2013 in his application under Section 7(2) of the aforesaid Act. According to the petitioner, since the Court below had no jurisdiction to pass such order, the same should be treated to be a nullity and based on the said order there was no scope for passing the impugned order under Section 7(3) of the said Act.

6. The landlord/opposite party has filed affidavit-in-opposition.

7. I have perused the same. With the said affidavit-in-opposition, the opposite party has annexed a copy of the revisional application in C.O. No.921 of 2014. On perusal of the said revisional application being C.O. No.921 of 2014, it appears that the defendant, while filing the said revisional application, mentioned in ground no.5 thereof that "the learned Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity by not considering that even learned Court had no jurisdiction to hear the said application." It is not disputed that the said revisional application was dismissed and the defendant has not preferred any appeal therefrom before any higher Forum. That being so, the issue has been settled with regard to the question of jurisdiction and the same cannot be re-agitated in a fresh revisional application before a Co-ordinate Bench. Therefore, this Court is of considered view that this Court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the order dated 24th November, 2014, passed by a Single Bench of this Court, dismissing the defendant's earlier revisional application.

8. That apart, this Court cannot overlook the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Explanation V of the said Section 11 is relevant for the present purpose. It says that any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, for the purpose of Section 11, shall be deemed to have been refused. Section 11 with its explanation V is set out below :-

"Res judicata - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court compe