A finding on an application for interim injunction does not operate as res judicata and the trial court is bound to decide the issues afresh when disposing of the suit.

R. S. Pathak, C. J.:-This review petition prays for the recalling of our judgment and order dated June 19, 1974*allowing a revision petition. * Reported in AIR 1975 Him Pra 15.

2. The petitioner is the landlord of a shop in Solan. He applied under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of the respondent-tenant from the shop. On July 29, 1970 the Controller passed an order of evic­tion in terms of a compromise arrived at between the parties. Under the compro­mise the tenant agreed to vacate the accommodation by February 1, 1971.

3. On March 16, 1972 a suit was filed by the tenant for a declaration that the order dated July 29, 1970 was a nullity and he was not obliged to leave the pre­mises. He also applied for an interim in­junction. The learned Subordinate Judge granted an injunction on May 20, 1972 restraining the landlord from enforcing the order of the Control­ler during the pendency of the suit. The landlord filed an appeal, and on Novem­ber 28, 1972 the learned District Judge made an order vacating the injunction. Thereafter, the tenant applied in revi­sion to this Court against the order of the learned District Judge. This Court held that the order of the Controller was a nullity, the order having been made without reference to any of the statutory grounds of eviction. Being a nullity, the Court said, the order could be question­ed by a suit in a court of law. The court observed that the order of the learned District Judge vacating the injunction suffered from a jurisdictional error. The Court set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restored the order of the learned Subordinate Judge granting an injunction.

4. And now this review petition has been filed by the landlord.

5. Learned counsel for the landlord urges that this Court has held that the order of the Controller is a nullity and in the result has disposed of the suit it­self. Learned counsel reminds us that in a proceeding for interim injunction the Court should not render a finding which terminates the suit itself in which the injunction is prayed for. Ordinarily, we would have no hesitation in endors­ing the proposition advanced by learned counsel. But let us examine what has happened in the present case. The learn­ed Subordinate Judge granted an in­junction after holding that the order of the Controller was a nullity and there­fore the tenant had a prima facie case to go to trial, that the balance of conve­nience was in his favour and apparently an irreparable loss would be suffered in the event of his being compelled to vacate the premises. In the appeal filed by the landlord against that order, it appears that the only point pressed before the learned District Judge related to the question whether the order of the Con­troller was a nullity and therefore whe­ther the suit was not barred by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. A perusal of the order of the learned Dis­trict Judge does not show that the land­lord questioned the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in relation to the balance of convenience between the par­ties or made any attempt to have the point determined whether the tenant would suffer irreparable loss if an in­junction was not granted. When the re­vision was heard by this Court, again the point in controversy between the parties remained whether the order of the Controller was a nullity. No attempt was made by the landlord to show that even if the order could be described as a nullity and therefore a prima facie case could be said to exist in favour of the tenant, the ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not satisfied by the tenant, and the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge in that behalf were erroneous.

6. Now, therefore, this Court was called upon to decide the question whe­ther the order of the Controller was a nullity and a prima facie case existed in favour of the tenant. The question whe­ther the order of the Controller was a nullity had recei