Does a composite lease of building and land come within the purview of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 (for short, “Act 2 of 1965)? That is one of the substantial questions of law I am called upon to decide in this appeal. Short facts, frills and embroideries excluded and necessary for decision of this appeal are: A small building with measurement of 10 x 8 ft (80 Sq.ft) described as office building and vacant land measuring 35 x 75 ft. (2625 Sq.ft.) on which it is situate and belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of appellants was let out to the respondent as per Ext. A-1, Kaichit dated 4-2-1971 for three months for a monthly rent of Rs.500 for running a petrol pump. The tenancy continued on the same terms and conditions stated in Ext.A-1 even after expiry of the said period. Respondent filed RCP No.97 of 1972 in the Rent Control Court against appellants for fixation of fair rent. Appellants filed O.S.No.38 of 1975 in the Civil Court for realization of rent arrears. Respondent contended that his liability is only to pay the fair rent. O.S.No.38 of 1975 was decreed. RCP No.97 of 1972 was dismissed holding that as it is a lease of land and not building and hence the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to fix fair rent. The appeal and revision arising therefrom also ended in dismissal. The unrelenting respondent, at a time when a second revision (from the order of District Judge in revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965) was maintainable in this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) filed CRP No. 2382 of 1979. He also challenged judgment and decree in O.S.No.38 of 1975 in this Court in A.S.No. 182 of 1978. While so, parties thought it fit to bury their disputes and entered into a settlement. As per that settlement respondent agreed to pay rent at the contract rate and both parties agreed to withdraw their respective lis. Based on that settlement this Court by Ext.A-17, order dated 17-1-1980 disposed of A.S.No.182 of 1978 and CRP No.2362 of 1979. The undertaking of respondent to withdraw RCP No.97 of 1972 was recorded. Appellants were permitted to withdraw O.S.No.38 of 1975. Things went well for sometime. Respondent was running the petrol pump in the tenanted premises using the small building as office. In 1985 appellants terminated the tenancy and filed O.S.No.213 of 1985 for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises with rent arrears. Anticipating the possible contention of respondent, appellants pleaded that claim of respondent for protection of Act 2 of 1965 is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in RCP No.97 of 1972. Respondent shot back contending that he is a tenant entitled to the protection of Act 2 of 1965, eviction can be ordered only as per provisions of the said Act and hence the suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable. He claimed that as the previsions disputes were resolved by settlement and the respective lis were withdrawn the decision in RCP No.97 of 1972 cannot operate as res judicata. Trial Court accepted the plea of respondent and held that respondent is entitled to the protection of Act 2 of 1965. Trial Court gave the appellants a respite – a decree for recovery of rent arrears as they claimed. First Appellate Court has confirmed decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal at the instance of appellants/plaintiffs. Apart from the applicability of Act 2 of 1965 to a composite lease of building and land the following substantial questions also are framed for a decision.

(i) Is not the finding of courts below regarding application of res judicata contrary to law?

(ii) Does Ext.A-17, order of this Court in CRP No.2362 of 1979 impair, in law the finality of Ext.A-13 order accrued by reason of section 18(5) of the Act?

2. Sri. M.C. Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for appellants raised the following arguments: Ext.A-1, kaichit dated 4.2.1971 is not a lease of “buil