The decision of a Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the question of eviction of a tenant is final only on matters for which he has exclusive jurisdiction, such as rents and evictions. The Controller does not have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, a suit for injunction to restrain the landlord from dispossessing the tenant is not barred by res judicata due to the Controller's decision in the eviction proceedings.

( 1 ) SURINDER Kumar brought a suit for permanent injunction for restraining Kanta Devi and Bhoop Kaur, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the landladies ), from dispossessing him from shop No. 3103-04, Bahadurgarh Road. Delhi. He claimed to be a tenant of the shop. He averred that the landladies in conspiracy with M/s. Dwarka Dass Somat Prashad (defendant No. 3) filed a petition for the plaintiff s eviction on the ground that defendant No. 3 was the tenant who had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the shop to the plaintiff without the consent in writing of the landladies. This petition was filed under cls. (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Controller allowed this petition holding that the plaintiff was not a tenant of the landladies and ordered his eviction. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged this order before the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court.

( 2 ) THE defendants resisted the suit. One of the objections raised was that the suit was barred by principle of res judicata. The trial court framed an issue and tried it as a preliminary issue. It was decided against the defendants. This revision is directed against this decision.

( 3 ) MR. M. R. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that Explanation VIII of S. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code bars the suit on principle of res judicata. He also, in the alternative, contends that the suit is barred on analogous principles of res judicata.

( 4 ) THE Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was enacted to provide for the control of rents and evictions. The powers are to be exercised by the Controller appointed under the Act. Chapter III of the Act controls the eviction of tenants. Section 14 falls under this Chapter. This section pre-supposes the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties before any order of eviction can be passed. Where this relationship is in dispute the Controller has to incidentally decide it in order to decide the question of eviction. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 50 of the Act takes away the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to decide questions which the Controller is empowered to decide under the Act. It is in these words:

"save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any Civil Court or other authority. "however, sub-s. (4) saves the jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide certain questions: It is in the following terms:

"nothing in sub-s. (1) shall be construed as preventing a Civil Court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to person or persons who ore entitled to receive the rent of such premises. "

( 5 ) IT is thus plain that subject to the provisions of sub-s. (4) of S. 50 the decision of the Controller on the question of eviction of a tenant, or on a matter which the Controller is empowered by or under the Act to decide, is final. Though the Controller has not been empowered to decide a question of title to property or any question as to the persons entitled to receive the rent, he can decide these questions incidentally. This, in fact, is necessary in order to determine questions of rents and evictions of tenants for which the Controller was empowered by the Act. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Controller, as is apparent from the scheme of the Act, is only to decide questions relating to rents, eviction of tenants and grant of possession to landlords.

( 6 ) CHAPTER IIIA of the Act provides for summary trial of applicatio