Appeal from the controllers order not maintainable.

R. Sengottuvelan, J.

1. This civil revision petition arises out of the order of the learned 7th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, and the appellate authority in H.R.A. No. 837 of 1981, which was filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, in M.P. No. 358 of 1981 in H.R.C. No. 3761 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller.

2. The facts of the case are briefly these. The landlord, the civil revision petitioner herein, filed H.R.C No. 3761 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein, from the petition mentioned premises, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) on the ground that the landlord requires the petition mentioned premises for his own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on his own profession. The civil revision petitioner herein purchased the petition mentioned premises from the previous landlord by means of a sale deed, dated 16th May, 1980 and after purchase he filed H.R.C. No. 3761 of 1980, for eviction on the ground that he required the premises for his own profession. The landlord civil revision petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner and the tenant-respondent also is a qualified medical petitioner having his nursing home in the petition mentioned premises. The previous landlord of the petition mentioned premises, one Mr. Venkatarama Iyer prior to the sale of the petition mentioned premises in favour of the civil revisior petitioner filed H.R.C No. 482 of 1979 on the file of the 10th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and the Rent Controller, for eviction on the ground that the then landlord needed the premises for his own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on his business. The claim of the landlord was not found to be bona fide and hence the petition was dismissed on 27th August, 1979, on merits after a full-fledged trial. As against the said order of dismissal the previous landlord Mr. Venkatarama Iyer preferred H.E.A. No. 1990 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the 4th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and the appellate authority and the said appeal was also dismissed. Thus the prior proceeding between the respondent herein and the previous landlord, Mr. Venkatarama Iyer had become final. Earlier to this proceeding the said Mr. Venkatarama Iyer also filed a suit in O.S. No. 8343 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the learned Third Assistant Judge, City Civi1 Court, Madras, praying for possession of the petition mentioned premises and that suit was also dismissed on the ground that the provisions of the Bent Control Act are applicable to the tenancy in question.

3. In H.R.C. No. 3761 of 1980, the tenant-respondent, in addition to the other objections also took the plea that the application is not maintainable on account of the earlier proceedings for the very same relief between the predecessor-in-title of the landlord-civil revision petitioner and the tenant-respondent which had become final. During the pendency of H.R.C. No. 3761 of 1980 the tenant-respondent filed an application in M.P. No. 358 of 1981 under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Bent Control) Act praying for the summary rejection of the application without taking further evidence on the ground that the very same issue had already been decided between the landlord's predecessor-in-title and the tenant and the subsequent proceeding for the very same relief is barred under Section 19 of the above said Act. The learned Rent Controller after hearing both sides passed the following order

The question whether the main petition is hit by res judicata or not can be decided in the H.R.C. itself under separate point. No provision is available either in the Rent Control Act or in the Rules for filing a separate petition under Section 19 of the Act to decide this point in a M.P. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that this petition is not maintainable in law. In the result the petition is dismissed.

As against this order of the tenant-respondent