A final decision of an appellate authority under the House Rent Control Act on an issue directly and substantially in issue in a subsequent suit operates as res judicata.

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by defendant No. 1 against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No. 30/5 of 1975/79 reversing the decision dated 16-1-75/24-1-75 of the Additional Munsif, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 97 of 1971 and decreeing the suit declaring the defendant No. 1 as a licensee and directing recovery of possession and permanent injunction restraining the said defendant from interfering with the right, title and possession of the plaintiff in regard to the suit property.

( 2 ) PURSUANT to a gift made by her father under registered deed of gift dated 13-5-1939, the plaintiff alleged to have acquired title to the property and remained in enjoyment thereof. She constructed two houses on the land which was lying fallow, occupied one and allowed the defendant No. 1 to occupy the other on payment of Rs. 10/- per month as rent or licence fee for use and occupation of the said house. She got her name mutated and obtained a lease from the Khasmahal. Though initially the property in dispute was mutated in the name of defendant No. 1, ultimately mutation was made in the name of the plaintiff. With a view to evict the said defendant from the property, she instituted a proceeding under the House Rent Control Act (H. R. C. Case No. 63/64, Ext. 10) and got an order of eviction but in appeal (H. R. C. Appeal No. 18/70, Ext. N) she lost on a finding that defendant No. 1 was not a tenant. Thereafter the plaintiff asked defendant No. 1 to vacate the house and when he turned a deaf ear, she instituted the suit, for the reliefs stated above.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 alleged that one Choudhury Chakradhar Mohapatra who was the exclusive trustee of Sri (sic) Mahadev to whom the property belonged, in the year 1934 inducted him as a tenant in respect of the vacant land on receiving salami of Rs. 100/- and at an annual rental of Rs. 1. 26. He made construction of the houses, got himself assessed by the Municipality and was in possession as a permanent tenant. He took an alternative plea that if the lease was a void one, he acquired title by his adverse, open, peaceful and continuous possession for more than the statutory period. Gift in favour of the plaintiff was denied and it was further pleaded that the plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 126 of 1966 alleging the defendant No. 1 to be a monthly tenant but allowed the suit to be dismissed. He specifically pleaded estoppel against the plaintiff having regard to his stand in the previous litigation before the House Rent Controller as well as in the earlier suit and incompetency of the suit by reason of res judicata.

( 4 ) ON the materials placed by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that defendant No. 1 was a permanent tenant and acquired title by adverse possession and he was not a licensee and further holding that the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title and interest over the property by virtue of the deed of gift. Each of the findings of the trial Court was reversed by the appellate Court, the specific findings being that defendant No. 1 had failed to establish that he had constructed the house and hence he was a licensee and was evictable.

( 5 ) TWO questions have been urged by Mr. S. S. Das, the learned Counsel for the appellant : (a) if the decision of the appellate authority under the House Rent Control Act, a Court of competent jurisdiction but competent to decide issues, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 18/70, would operate as res judicata in the suit ? and (b) is defendant No. 1 a lessee or a licensee ?

( 6 ) MR. R. K. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has contended that the appellate authority under the House Rent Control Act dismissed the application of the plaintiff holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The finding on the issue as to the relationship of landlord and tenant would operte as res judicata but not the reasons suppo