Point of Law : Principles of res judicata applies as between two stages in the same litigation so that if an issue has been decided at an earlier stage against a party, it cannot be allowed to be re-agitated by him at a subsequent stage in the same suit or proceedings.

ORDER :

C.S. Sudha, J.

This R.C.R under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed by the respondent (the petitioner in the R.C.P) in R.C.A.No.26/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Vadakara. The appeal was filed by the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. against the order dated 18/12/2010 in R.C.P.No.28/2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Nadapuram. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

2. The petitioner/landlord moved the RCC, Nadapuram seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the petition schedule room on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.77/2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Vadakara, alleged that he bona fide requires the room for starting a retail stationary business in the tenanted premises. It was alleged that he has no other buildings or rooms in his possession, suitable for the proposed need. It was also alleged that the respondent is an immensely rich person, who has several other sources of income and therefore, he cannot get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3). The petitioner also alleged that the respondent is in possession of other suitable room and therefore he can very well shift the business being conducted in the tenanted premises to the said room. Therefore, eviction was sought under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act.

3. The respondent denied the title of the petitioner and contended that as per an oral gift deed executed by his mother, he is the owner of the tenanted premises. It was also contended that the R.C.P. is not maintainable as the case of the petitioner is that he had obtained possession of the petition schedule room in execution proceedings initiated pursuant to the final decree passed in O.S.No.77/2004 and therefore, he cannot now claim eviction of the tenanted premises from the respondent. The respondent also denied the bona fide need and contended that the petitioner is running a successful business in vegetables in a very important commercial locality in the city. The petitioner has also other buildings and rooms suitable for the proposed need. He claimed the benefit of the first and second provisos to Section 11(3). He also denied the allegation of the petitioner that he is in possession of other rooms which are suitable for running his business being conducted in the tenanted premises.

4. The question whether the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent was bona fide or not was decided by the RCC by order dated 29/07/2010. It was held that the denial was not bona fide. Thereafter, trial was conducted, evidence was adduced by both sides and after hearing both sides, the RCC allowed the R.C.P. under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The respondent-tenant took up the matter in appeal. The RCAA reversed the finding of the RCC on the question of denial of title by the tenant as well as the findings on the grounds for eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner-landlord has come up in revision.

5. The respondent had filed Cross Objection no.52/2013. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing, no instructions was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent and hence the cross objection has been dismissed.

6. The question to be considered is, whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings of the RCAA.

7. Heard Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

8. The order of the RCC dated 18/12/2010 shows that the question whether denial of the petitioner's title over the tenanted premises by the respondent is bona fide or not, had been decided vide order dated 29/07/2010 and the point has been answered against the respondent-tenant. This order is an appealable order under Section 18 of the Act (Kallianikutty v. Velayudhan, 1975 KHC 72). Admittedly, no appeal has