VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. Appl. No. 32652/2017 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

RFA No. 770/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 32651/2017 (for stay)

1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 1.6.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The suit has been dismissed as being barred by the principle of res judicata, inasmuch as, the appellants/plaintiffs claim that they are owners/landlords of the suit premises but the appellants/plaintiffs in earlier proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been held not to be landlords and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in terms of the judgment dated 7.12.2002 in Eviction Petition No. 176/1995. Appeal against the judgment dated 7.12.2002 filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide its judgment dated 5.9.2011. Subject suit was, therefore, dismissed by the trial court by holding that though the appellants/plaintiffs claim to be the owners/landlords of the suit premises, however, this finding has been held against them in earlier proceedings culminating in the judgments dated 7.12.2002 and 5.9.2011, and which judgments though were passed by the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal under the Delhi Rent Control Act, however, such judgments will operate as res judicata because of Section 11 Explanation VIII CPC which provides that an issue heard and finally decided by the court of limited jurisdiction competent to decide such issue will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit.

2. The facts of the case are that the subject suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking the reliefs of declaration, possession and recovery of moneys. The prayer clauses of the plaint read as under:-

“PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances above-stated, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant:

(a) Decree of declaration in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant company, thereby declaring that relationship of landlord and tenant, was created between Plaintiffs? predecessors succeeded to by Plaintiffs and Defendant Company, in accordance with Lease Agreement dated 10th May 1980, with effect from 26th February 1983 in respect to premises, comprising about one half area of basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor, having area of 10000 sq.ft in property bearing No. E-4/11, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi as recognized and accepted in Defendant’s Lease Agreement dated 26th February 1983 which came to end upon defendant denying plaintiff’s title to the above property, and, by way of consequential relief, pass order of injunction against defendant company restraining defendant from transferring, parting with possession of premises let out to them, to any other person other than the plaintiffs, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(b) Decree for possession be passed in favour of Plaintiffs and against defendant company, in respect of Suit Property comprising about half the area of basement, ground floor, mezzanine, first, second, third, fourth floor and terrace floor, having area of 10000 sq. ft. situated at E-4/11, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi more clearly described in plan enclosed to defendant’s lease deed dated 26th February 1983 registered as No. 1786 Additional Book No. 1 Volume no. 4823 Pages 79-85 with the office of Sub Registrar, New Delhi as the sublet area, produced with the plaint;

(c) Decree for money in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant company in the sum of Rs.1,34,03,888/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Four Lacs Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eig