A subsequent suit between the same parties is barred by res judicata if the issue in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially the same as an issue that was decided in an earlier suit.

( 1 ) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated June 6, 1962 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the finding of the trial Court that the present suit filed by the appellant was barred under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of the judgment dated July 12, 1947, in Suit No. 17 of 1947, of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, has been affirmed.

( 2 ) THE house in dispute which is situate in Mohalla Dassan, Delhi, was leased out to the respondent with effect from December 18, 1935 by a registered deed of lease by Mahant Bhola Das who was the last Mahant in respect of the temple and Thakurdwara of Charan Dassi which had been founded by one Swami Rup Ram. The lease was for a period of 10 years with effect from December 19, 1935 and expiring on December 18, 1945. Mahant Bhola Das died on November 11, 1939 and upon his death one Uma Shankar Shastri filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Meerut claiming succession to Mahant Bhola Das. The appellant was one of the defendants in the said suit. The Civil Judge, Meerut, gave a judgment on October 11, 1944 decreeing the suit and holding that Uma Shankar Shastri was the Gaddi Nashin of Mahant Bhola Das and repelling the appellant s claim to be such Gaddi Nashin. The appellant filed an appeal from the said judgment in the High Court of Allahabad.

( 3 ) WITHOUT waiting for the result of the appeal, the appellant filed a suit on January 7, 1947 against the respondent claiming the latter s ejectment. The two material Issues in this suit were lsues Nos. 1, and 5. Issue No. 1 was whether the respondent herein was a tenant of the appellant herein and Issue No. 5 was as to the effect of the decision of Civil Judge Meerut in the aforesaid suit which had been filed by Uma Shankar Shastri against the present appellant. On the first Issue, the Subordinate Judge held that the appellant had not produced the alleged will of Mahant Bhola Das which had been alleged, to have been filed in Allahabad High Court nor had he realised any rent from the respondent. Relying upon the judgment of the Civil Judge, Meerut, that Uma Shankar Shastri was the Chela of Mahant Bhola Das, the Subordinate Judge held that he appellant had failed to prove the Issue. On Issue No. 5 the Subordinate Judge held that the said Uma Shankar Shastri had been declared as the Chela and Successor of Mahant Bhola Das and, therefore, the appellant could not be the landlord of the respondent and the appellant had, therefore, no locus standi to file the suit. The Subordinate Judge in this case was concerned only with the question whether the respondent was a tenant under the appellant and that question was decided against the appellant for the reasons that the appellant had failed to prove the will of Mahant Bhola Das and that it had been held by the Civil Judge, Meerut, that Uma Shankar Shastri and not the appellant was the Chela and successor of Mahant Bhola Das.

( 4 ) IN so far as the suit out of which the present appeal arises is concerned, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have not gone into the question as to whether the appellant is the successor of Mahant Bhola Das or not because the suit has been disposed of merely on the preliminary issue as to whether it was barred by res judicata. In the present suit which was also a suit for ejectment and damages for use and occupation, the appellant had stated, inter alia, that the appellant being the successor of Mahant Bhola Das was by operation of law entitled to eject the respondent. The claim in the suit is for Rs. 600. 00 for use and occupation and for ejectment of the respondent. The value of the suit for purposes of ejectment has been fixed at Rs. 100. 00 being one year s rental value. It is stated in the plaint that the cause of action for the present suit arose on August 2, 1954, which was the date when the High Court of Allahabad allowed the appeal which had been filed by the appellant against the o