Sound application barred by res judicata.

PADMANABHAN, J. :- This civil revision petition arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973, (for short the Act). The respondent is the owner of premises No.12 Mooker Nallamuthu St, Madras. The revision petitioners are tenants under the respondent in respect of a portion of the western side in the ground floor of the said premises. The said portion has been let out to the petitioners by the respondent for non-resident the purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. The respondent is occupying a portion of the premises for residential purposes. The respondent is carrying on business in partnership with other family members in the name and style of T. S. C. Sanitaries in premises No. 128 Thambu Chetti St. Madras. Apart from the said business the respondent has also take up agency for Mercury paints and also distributorship for Colourcem for the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. The said premises in which the respondent is carrying on business belongs to one Abdul Khader, his brother. Since the respondent is not occupying a building of his own for carrying on business he filed H. R.C. 308 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller. Madras for eviction of the revision petitioners under Sec.10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act.

2. The revision petitioners, among others, raised a contention that the respondent had on an earlier occasion filed a similar petition for eviction in HRC No. 744 of 1976 under Sec.10 (3) (c) for additional accommodation. The Rent Controller passed an order for eviction. The revision petitioners filed H. R.A. 939 of 1978. The appellate-authority by its judgment dated 17th July 1979 set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction petition. According to the revision petitioners the present petition for eviction is barred by res judicata by the judgment dt. 17th July 1979 in H. R.A, 939 of 1978. Besides, the revision petitioners have also contended that the respondent is not entitled to an order for eviction on the merits also.

3. The learned Rent Controller dealt with the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue and held that the petition for eviction was not barred by resjudicata under Sec.19 of the Act. The revision petitioners then filed H. R.A. 1231 of 1980. The appellate authority by judgment dt. 20th June 1981, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller dismissed the appeal preferred by revision petitioners. Hence this civil revosion petition.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the present petition for eviction filed by the respondent is barred by res judicata under Sec.19 of the Act and is liable to dismissed in limine.

5. Before answering the question of raised by the learned counsel for revision petitioners, it is necessary to state a few facts. H. R.C. 744 of 1976 filed by the respondent against the revision petitioners under S.10 (3) (c) of the Act. In that the respondent alleged that he was carrying on business at No. 41 Thambu Chetti St. Madras, in partnership with his other family members and that he required the premises by way of additional accommodation for using the place as a godown for his business purposes. The revision petitioners in their counter affidavit contended that the respondent was owning a number of buildings and that his requirement for additional accommodation was not bona fide. The respondent also filed HRC No. 1086 of 1974 under S.10 (2) (i) of the Act on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent, with which we are not concerned here the Rent Controller found that the respondent bona fide required the premises for additional accommodation and

that the relative hardship that would be caused by eviction of the revision petitioners would outweigh the advantage to the respondent by ordering eviction. In the result. the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Against the order of eviction, the revision petitioners filed two appeals H. R.A.